Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Afghanistan

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the United Nations to discuss the continuing hostilities in Afghanistan.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is in former Yugoslavia today.
My right hon. Friend has not recently discussed Afghanistan with representatives of the United Nations.

Mr. Hanson: In view of the continuing slaughter of innocent people in Kabul and other centres of population in Afghanistan, will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister arrange an early meeting with the United Nations to raise two matters—first, the need for an urgent arms embargo, especially on weapons from Pakistan; and secondly, the early re-establishment of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Afghanistan, which was withdrawn from the country in January? While the slaughter continues, both measures are needed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have regular contacts with United Nations representatives. In recent months, we have supported two Security Council presidential statements calling for an end to the hostilities and for support for the programme of humanitarian aid.
The United Nations is seeking to re-establish its presence in Afghanistan. A proposal is under consideration to put a mission from the UNHCR back in the country.

Rwanda

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Government policy with regard to the situation in Rwanda.

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rwanda.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are fully joining in international efforts to bring a halt to the bloodshed. On 8 June, the Security Council approved the deployment of an expanded United Nations force. We have offered 50 trucks to the United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda, UNAMIR, and we are considering whether we can do more. We have supported the French initiative to mount a humanitarian mission until the expanded UNAMIR can be put in place.
Since 6 April, we have given more than £11 million in humanitarian aid, and a further Overseas Development Administration assessment mission is now visiting the region. Once it returns we shall consider what further bilateral assistance we can provide, including in the areas covered by the French initiative.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the letter to us all from the Minister for Overseas Development. Can he assure the House that we are giving as much humanitarian assistance as is needed? Can he ensure that the people of Rwanda are protected in the humanitarian zone? Given the finding that genocide has been perpetrated in Rwanda, can he assure the House that all responsible for it will speedily be brought to justice by the relevant international authorities?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have outlined the humanitarian assistance that has been given to help refugees in the humanitarian zone and the neighbourhood, and a mission is assessing whether we should be doing more.
I can confirm that the French have established a humanitarian zone and that people can live there safely.
A Security Council resolution of 1 July established a commission of experts to analyse the information relating to violations of international human standards in Rwanda.

Mr. Worthington: Is not it true that the French stepped in only because of the failure of the United Nations to act with urgency, and that the French have committed themselves to pulling out at the end of July? All my information leads me to believe that there is no commitment to replace them. Surely the Minister realizes that 50 trucks are wholly inadequate as supplementary logistical support. Whatever else happens, can the Minister assure us that we will be spared the obscenity of the Government of Rwanda becoming the president of the UN Security Council in September?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has heard what Isaid and he has been in correspondence with my ministerial colleagues. I can only reiterate that the provision of British equipment is the result of what has been requested of us by the United Nations. Of course, we are not the only country that has responded in that area. A number of countries have offered logistical support, including ourselves, America, Russia, France, Canada and South Africa. So there are others involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the troops sought by the Secretary-General are coming from a number of African countries, which I think is right; they are from Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo and Mali. Local countries have taken the initiative at the request of the Secretary-General.

Mr. Lester: In his report to the Security Council, the Secretary-General suggested that, because the performance of the Security Council and the international community in dealing with the issue was, I think he said, deplorable, he would set up an inquiry into the operation of the international community when confronted with crises such as that in Rwanda. Has my hon. Friend any news about the inquiry? Has it been set up, and at what stage will we hear the result of it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not aware of any detailed conclusions that have been reached; but of course I shall be happy to answer a question from my hon. Friend when those details are available.

Dr. John Cunningham: The United Nations agreed a force for Rwanda, but did not agree its deployment. Now that its deployment has been agreed, we are told that it has been held up because of lack of logistical support from western countries. Why is further delay occurring? Genocide continues in Rwanda and hundreds of thousands of terrified people are flooding across the borders of some of the most impoverished countries in the world. Of course, no sensible person blames all that on Her Majesty's Government; I am not suggesting that. [Laughter.] I am dismayed that Conservative Members think that this is a laughing matter; it just shows how pathetic their attitude really is. We want to know from Foreign Office Ministers whether it is lack of capability or lack of political will that is preventing the United Nations from getting its act together.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly it would be wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to blame the British Government and I defend the British Government—

Dr. Cunningham: I did not say that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to cast blame widely—including, in part, on the British Government. We have responded to the request of the Secretary-General for the supply of equipment. We have made that equipment available; it is being inspected by United Nations people at the moment and will be ready for deployment when the United Nations is ready. It is not lack of support from the British Government that is constraining activities in that area. As to humanitarian aid, we responded immediately and provided a substantial amount of help; we are ready to do more. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the British Government cannot be accused of not taking our international commitments seriously as we are the fourth largest contributor to United Nations operations in the world.

Israel

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): They are excellent.

Mrs. Kennedy: I am pleased to hear that from the Minister. Is he aware of concern about the British Government's attitude to the continuing Arab trade boycott of Israel? Does he agree that British companies need the

shield of legislation to allow them unequivocally to reject demands that they comply with the boycott? Will he consider introducing such legislation here?

Mr. Hogg: There is concern about the trade boycott and we deplore that boycott. I am glad to say that the tertiary and secondary boycott has been falling away and that there has been a substantial increase in the volume of United Kingdom exports to Israel. In 1993, exports to Israel were up by 50 per cent; in the first five months of this year, exports to Israel were up by 26 per cent; and Israel is now the third most important export market for United Kingdom goods in the middle east.

Sir David Madel: What is the Government's attitude to the idea that Jerusalem could become the capital of an independent Palestinian state as well as the capital of Israel?

Mr. Hogg: That is certainly a matter which should be given the utmost consideration by those who will have to negotiate Jerusalem's status. It has long been agreed that that status will be addressed at the very end of the peace process, which I consider both inevitable and right, but the parties to the negotiations will wish to think seriously about finding a way for Palestinians and Israelis to share Jerusalem.

Sir David Steel: Will Her Majesty's Government give a warm welcome to last week's political initiative from King Hussein of Jordan, which has received a ready response from the Israeli Government? I understand that official talks between the two countries are taking place this very week.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and we do indeed give a warm welcome to the speech made by His Majesty the King of Jordan. Negotiations between Jordan and Israel will start on 18 July, and will deal with such important subjects as the border, security and water. That is a very welcome development, and we applaud it.

Mr. John Marshall: I welcome the recent improvements in relations between Britain and Israel, but may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to agree with people in Israel who—remembering what happened in the years before 1967—are reluctant for Jerusalem ever again to become a divided city?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I can sensibly add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel). The question of Jerusalem is of key importance, and is best dealt with at the end of the peace process. There are powerfully competing emotions among all sides in the negotiations, which must be dealt with sensibly.

Dr. Howells: I am sure the Minister will agree that the international community has a duty to help the new Administration in Gaza and Jericho. No doubt he is aware that that Administration requires an estimated £900 million of aid just to stabilise living conditions for the 700,000 Palestinians who live in Gaza, mostly in deplorable conditions. Will the Government give a lead in ensuring that the money promised by donor countries is delivered to those who have the great task of rebuilding Gaza?

Mr. Hogg: But we are giving a lead. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the statement made on 8 July by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who


made it plain that, in addition to the £70 million that we would make available over the next three years, we were providing an additional £5 million in bilateral assistance. That will go largely to the Palestinian police force, but there will be other technical support. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the fact that, for example, the Bank of England is now helping the Palestinians to establish a Palestinian monetary authority. We are already playing a full part, and we now look to others to do likewise.

Asia-Pacific Commercial Sections

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Foreign Office is doing to reinforce commercial sections in Asia and the Pacific.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad to say that exports to the Asia-Pacific rim region rose by 28.5 per cent. in 1993 to £13 billion, and that since 1990 total export promotion effort at the Foreign Office posts in Asian and Pacific rim countries has risen by 23 per cent.

Mr. Butler: I welcome the increasing trade in what might be termed a frontier market, but I was seeking assurances about the amount of additional assistance that the Foreign Office is offering business men. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the increased co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry will continue, so that our business men receive as much assistance in these important markets as business men in our European competitor nations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is quite right. As I have said, the export promotion effort has risen substantially: we have created 40 new front-line commercial jobs at posts in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Delhi, Singapore and Hanoi, and at the British trade and cultural office in Taipei. My hon. Friend can rest assured that a great deal of effort is going into meeting that frontier market.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How many letters has the Foreign Office received from British business men or businesses suggesting—indeed, complaining—that Britain's attitude to China over Hong Kong is costing them business?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some facts speak clearly for themselves. In 1992, exports to China were up 72 per cent. and in the first quarter of 1994 they were up 22 per cent., so we are on course to do the same again this year. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. There have been assurances from Chinese Premier Li Peng and from the Vice Premier and Foreign Minister that China will not discriminate against British companies in commercial interests.

Dr. Spink: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the performance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in trade development in recent years. Notwithstanding the statistics that he has just given us in relation to China, is my hon. Friend satisfied that we are doing as much as we can—and as much as our major competitors—to capture that fast-growing market?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I can say is that we are doing extremely well. I cannot give precise comparisons because

they are difficult to make. I believe that we are making an enormous effort to help British exporters, who are responding.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the war crimes tribunal investigating atrocities in the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 827 which established the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We welcome the recent appointment of Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa as the prosecutor. In the meantime, we have been co-operating with and supporting the work of the acting deputy prosecutor, Mr. Blewitt, who has been setting up the prosecutor's office in The Hague.

Mr. Hutton: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House when he thinks that the first indictments will be issued by the tribunal and when the first prosecutions are likely to start? Does the Minister think that the time may be right for the British Government to give serious consideration to the establishment of a permanent United Nations tribunal to deal with war crimes and human rights violations around the world?

Mr. Hogg: The former part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the prosecutor. I understand that there is some chance that there will be trials before the end of the year.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the position is that the United Nations International Law Commission has produced suggestions—a draft—for the establishment of an international criminal court. Clearly there are attractions in that. We now have to consider whether it is practicable. If one were to be set up, it might be the appropriate forum in which to try war crimes such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Jenkin: Given the situation in the former Yugoslavia, which is symptomatic of the failure of our common European foreign policy led by Germany, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the Karlsruhe judgment in Germany this week? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the speeches by President Clinton proposing a leadership role for Germany oversimplify foreign policy in Europe and are rather more reminiscent of Joseph Kennedy than of J. F. Kennedy?

Mr. Hogg: What is happening in former Yugoslavia has more to do with the bloodiness of human nature than with anything on the part of the German Government or any other Government. I disagree with my hon. Friend on that point.

Bosnia

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in central Bosnia.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The situation in central Bosnia is stable. The ceasefire between the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Croat forces has held up well. The United


Kingdom UNPROFOR contingent has played an active part in monitoring the ceasefire, chairing the joint liaison commissions and assisting humanitarian work in the area.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister agree that to establish a lasting and successful peace framework in central Bosnia it will be essential to respect two principles: first, that the internationally recognised boundaries of Bosnia should be preserved in any peace settlement and, secondly, that there is a right for refugees and displaced persons to return to their areas of origin, from which many were forced out by the horrors of ethnic cleansing? Will the British Government be resolute in pressing for those principles as part of a peace settlement?

Mr. Hogg: Both are important principles. The map worked out by the contact group provides for the preservation of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a complete entity, the external frontiers of which will be respected. The return of refugees is also tremendously important, but we must keep in mind the fact that before people will go back and, a fortiori, stay there, they must have confidence that they will be safe. If there is a settlement, the international community can achieve some things by way of implementation. I hope that it can instil confidence, which is a necessary precondition for the achievement of that second element.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the achievement of peace in Bosnia—we all wish the Foreign Secretary well in his difficult mission—depends primarily on the Serbs; that the Bosnian Government have behaved extremely responsibly in recent weeks; and that, as he himself said, the alliance with the Croats has held?

Mr. Hogg: I welcome the alliance with the Croats, and it is true that the federation between the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats seems to be holding firm. It is important to keep in mind the fact that the recent infringements of the ceasefire were committed by both sides—by the Bosnian Government as much as by the Bosnian Serbs. It is important to be aware that the contact group's proposal will not work unless it is accepted by both sides; so we look to both sides to accept it.

Dr. John Cunningham: Everyone wishes the Foreign Secretary well on his mission to former Yugoslavia and we hope that he will be successful in impressing on the combatants the fact that this is perhaps their last opportunity for a negotiated settlement. It is sad that the current offer to the Bosnian Government is worse than was available when they had the opportunity to reach a settlement in 1992. Of course we wish the Foreign Secretary well, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that, if a success is not achieved in the next few days, there will be no early abrogation of either the sanctions against Serbia or the arms embargo on Bosnia?

Mr. Hogg: If a settlement is not reached because the contact group plan is rejected—I am focusing now on the question of rejection by the Bosnian Serbs—it is certain that sanctions will remain in place and that they will almost certainly be toughened. It is probable that the arms embargo will not survive. The pressure to relax the arms embargo in the event of the Serbs rejecting the plan will probably prove irresistible.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at this stage, it would be a tragedy if the contact group were not successful, bearing in mind the sacrifices that have been made by French and British troops in delivering aid in Bosnia? I hope that he will continue in his endeavours to encourage everyone to sign the agreement.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is a critical moment. If the parties do not accept the plan that has been proposed and worked out by the contact group, there is a grave danger that war in Bosnia will re-ignite and develop with ever-increasing intensity.

Albania and Macedonia

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken or proposes to take in the light of Serbian aggression against Albania and Macedonia.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Following the occupation by Serbian troops of a hill near the Serbia-Macedonia border in mid-June, the British chargé d'affaires in Belgrade made representations to the Serbian authorities. We welcome the recent agreement brokered by UNPROFOR, under which Serbian and Macedonian troops withdrew from the vicinity of the hill. We are not aware of any recent cases of Serbian aggression towards Albania. We continue to watch developments in the region carefully.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Does not the Minister recognise that the west's inaction when Milosevic first used his tanks and aircraft against Ljubljana gave a green light to Serbian aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that appeasement of Serbian aggression and acceptance of their ability to gain territory by force encourages acts of aggression against Macedonia and Albania and the further persecution of the Albanian majority in Kosovo?
Will the Government now stand firm against Serbian aggression and try to prevent the conflict in the Balkans from getting completely out of hand?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should not indulge in generalities; he needs to be careful not to induce people to suppose that the Government mean, or that he means, things that we do not or he does not really mean. It is our policy to try to persuade the parties to accept the plan worked out by the contact group. We are not in the business of waging war; the hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is, but that is not the policy of his party's Front-Bench spokesmen.

Sir Peter Emery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the Macedonian resolution passed almost unanimously by 53 nations in the Parliament of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe demanding of Greece the recognition of Macedonia and the withdrawal of any trade restrictions? Would that not greatly assist Macedonia with any problems that might arise in the future?

Mr. Hogg: I have indeed seen the resolution to which my right hon. Friend refers, and I welcome it. The Greek Government's policies towards Macedonia are quite wrong, especially that of imposing sanctions. We were very pleased when the European Court of Justice took up


the issue. Proposals worked out by Cyrus Vance address all the relevant questions which divide Macedonia and Greece, and I very much hope that Macedonia and Greece will be prepared to accept the compromises worked out by him.

Ms Quin: Is not Macedonia facing a grave crisis in terms of its security and economy, with industry virtually at a standstill and unemployment rocketing? I welcome the Vance initiative, but what contact is the Minister having with the Greek Government and his European Union partners to resolve the problem, as it seems that the European Court avenue is not going to provide a speedy solution?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right that the European Court is not prepared to take interim action—a fact which I very much regret, as it would have been a useful way forward. We have been in frequent bilateral contact with the Greek authorities and the issue has been raised frequently by Ministers in the context of various European Union Councils. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary intends that it should be raised at the next Council meeting which, I believe, is early next week. It is a very important issue and we will continue to press the Greek Government on it.

Nigeria

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to try to persuade the Nigerian authorities to respect the result of last year's presidential elections.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Secretary of State is worried about developments in Nigeria. The Nigerian Government claim to want a speedy transition to democratic government, but their actions contradict their claims: their decision to put Chief Abiola on trial cannot help to achieve that end. Meanwhile, their regressive economic policies are stifling industrial production and domestic and foreign investment and damaging Nigeria's standing with its creditors. We are urging all sides in Nigeria to join in constructive political dialogue.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he emphasise that the British Government's friendship towards the Nigerian people makes it absolutely clear that we want democratic accountability to come to Nigeria, that we want the President who was elected almost a year ago to be allowed to take his place, and that we want the Parliament that was freely elected to be able to take control from the military Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can, of course, confirm that we wish Nigeria to return to democratic civilian government. Last June's elections were the most free and fair in Nigeria's history. It is important that Nigeria should have a President who is acceptable to all, and it must be for Nigerians to resolve whom that should be.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern about the arrest not only of Chief Abiola but of many other people who support the democratic process in Nigeria? Some people in this country, including Nigerian students, say that we should at least impose an arms embargo, if not go further, to try to ensure that Nigerians accept the democratic process.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in conjunction with our European partners and the American Government we have imposed certain sanctions against the Nigerian military: visa restrictions, bans on high level visits and on military training, and restrictions on defence sales. Those will remain in force for the time being.

Paraguay

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Paraguay following the recent visit to the United Kingdom by President Wasmosy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Relations are excellent. We were delighted to welcome President Wasmosy to the United Kingdom for the first time last week.

Mr. Streeter: During the recent visit of the Paraguayan President, did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss with him the difficult question of drug trafficking from Latin America? Does he agree that it is time for a fresh initiative to try to stem the flow of life-destroying drugs from South America to Europe?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, Paraguay is on a number of drug routes, which is why we so warmly welcome its Government's commitment to getting on top of that scourge. During the President's visit, we signed a drug assets confiscation agreement and we look forward to its being put into practical effect.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister acknowledge that a key issue for people concerned about strengthening the democratic process in Paraguay is the establishment of a civil service free of party political interference—one which has security of tenure for its civil servants and is professionally recruited on merit? Does he share my deep concern, however, that we are in a weak position to lecture any other country on such subjects, having so weakened our own civil service under the present Government?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's insinuations about this country, but I welcome without reservation Paraguay's return to democracy after more than 50 years.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the significance of President Wasmosy's visit the fact that he is a directly elected Latin American President who received his symbols of office from a predecessor who was also directly elected—something for which Latin America is now once again becoming renowned? Is it not of great value to have within Mercosur, the trading bloc of southern America, a country with a long-standing record of free enterprise and free trade?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we welcome the return to civilian democratic government of almost all the countries in that continent. There is an especially interesting development concerning trade in the southern part of South America, in that we hope that the Mercosur agreement will come into effect at the beginning of next year. There will


be a free trade zone among the countries of that region, and Paraguay will be at the centre of it, so our excellent trading relations with that country will stand us in good stead.

International Paedophile Rings

Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with other Governments about international paedophile rings.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We take every opportunity in all international forums to urge action against child prostitution.

Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he consider having talks with the Sri Lankan Government, who are taking strong measures to combat paedophile rings? For example, they have established a Cabinet sub-committee and set up a separate unit in every police department, the tourist board is closely supervising hotels and guest houses, and the Government are carrying out a public awareness programme as well as conveying strongly to foreigners the message that they will not tolerate the exploitation of children. Does the Minister think that other Governments could learn from that? If so, what could his Department do to co-ordinate a campaign against that vile practice?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Lady knows, I have myself been in touch with the Sri Lankan high commissioner on all these matters. I can tell her that there is a great deal of police co-operation between Britain, Sri Lanka and other countries. The national crime intelligence service has a paedophile unit which gathers information on known British rings and liaises with its counterparts in the region of which the hon. Lady speaks. British officers take an active part in the work of Interpol in dealing with offences against minors. Interpol provides a useful focus for international police co-operation in the area.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time of kid glove action is over and that we must go for a mailed fist result? We must really go after the perverts—the evil people who prey on the bodies of children in an unnatural way. Would my hon. Friend consider discussing with people overseas and our Home Office whether, on a second conviction, castration might be a very suitable approach? One would be surprised to see how few people would need to be castrated to stop this evil practice against children—and I would do the same for those who rape women.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion is a matter for the Foreign Office.

Bosnia

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Bosnian Government in respect of recent breaches of ceasefire agreements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have repeatedly urged all sides to show restraint and we are supporting UN efforts to extend the ceasefire. We are also pressing the parties to accept the proposals put forward by the Geneva ministerial meeting on 5 July. My right hon. Friend the Foreign

Secretary and his French colleague Mr. Juppé are taking action with the key players in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia on their current visit.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that the breaches of the ceasefire have been mainly by the Muslim Government from Sarajevo since the recent ceasefire agreement was arranged? It is important that we get the right message through to the Bosnian Muslim Government. Does the Minister agree that it is erroneous to tell the Bosnian Serbs that whenever they have breached the ceasefire agreements they may be confronted by air strikes when there are not tit-for-tat threats against the Muslim leaders in Sarajevo? If there is to be a successful conclusion to the present peace negotiations and if there is to be agreement by the Bosnian Serbs, this country and the United Nations must show an even-handed approach.

Mr. Hogg: On the first three paragraphs of the hon. Gentleman's question, the factual position is as follows: in terms of the number of infringements during the past month's ceasefire, the Bosnian Serbs committed the most, but perhaps the most serious infringements were committed by the Bosnian Government. Looking forward, I greatly welcome the fact that Mr. Akashi was able to negotiate an extension to that one-month ceasefire.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In the context of what the Minister said earlier, when he surmised that the arms embargo could be lifted, and given the fairly trenchant position that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have taken on the issue, what would be the British Government's position if such a development were to come about or draw near?

Mr. Hogg: It is true that for two years or so we have argued strongly against the relaxation of the arms embargo as we believe that such a relaxation would run the risk of seriously re-igniting the war in Bosnia. That remains our view, but it also remains a fact that if the present negotiations do not succeed and, in particular, if they are rejected by the Bosnian Serbs, the pressure to relax the arms embargo—most especially, although not exclusively, in Washington—will probably prove irresistible. We shall have to judge our own policy as the facts develop.

Commonwealth Institute

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the Commonwealth Institute.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am pleased to announce that the Minister for Overseas Development has today informed the acting chairman of the Commonwealth Institute that the Government are willing to provide a grant of £2.4 million over the three-year period from 1996–97 to enable the institute to regenerate its galleries and become self-supporting by March 1999.

Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for his reply and also for kindly telephoning me this morning in relation to the matter. Is he aware, however, that the Commonwealth Institute in London is desperately in need of cash to finance the refurbishment of the building, which will cost about £5 million? Given that grants were previously in the order of


£2 million per year, does not £2.4 million over three years pale a little in comparison? Does that not show a negative attitude towards the Commonwealth?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. The Government are most certainly committed to the continued strength of the Commonwealth. The offer that the Government have made is under discussion with Mr. David Thompson, the acting chairman, and it is on condition that the institute raises £5 million in sponsorship and submits satisfactory business and building maintenance plans. Mr. Thompson is confident that, with the restructuring in hand and with the assistance that he will receive from private sponsorship, he will be able to maintain the building and make the Commonwealth Institute a viable and flourishing institution for the future.

Mr. David Howell: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is excellent news which will be widely welcomed on both sides of the house? Does he further accept, as I am sure that he does, that that institute or club, the Commonwealth, is not only thriving, but growing and that more and more countries are seeking to join it? Does he realise, as I am sure that he also does, that the provision is a very good move which reflects the growing interest of this country and Commonwealth members in grouping together for the future?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful for his encouraging comments. We hope that the Commonwealth Institute will thrive and flourish with an injection of private sector funds as well as Government assistance in the interim period because it is an important institute for the development of the Commonwealth which we wish to see flourish and thrive. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, we paid some 30 per cent. of the costs of the Commonwealth secretariat in London and 60 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Rogers: I do not quite understand why the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) thinks that the Government are advancing when there is a cut in grant from £6 million to £2.4 million. The Minister and the Government are sending out completely the wrong signals to the Commonwealth. We should like to know whether the Government intend to privatise or to hive off that valuable and focal institution because that is what they are doing under the restructuring. Will the Minister tell us what status he envisages for the Commonwealth Institute after 1996 and whether, when the process which he seems to be undertaking starts, he intends to repeal the Imperial Institute Act 1925 and the Commonwealth Institute Act 1958 under which the institute is governed? When will that process be put into train?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government believe that the Commonwealth Institute has a great future ahead of it, in the way in which I have indicated, with assistance from the private sector and help from the Government over the interim period. The institute is, of course, run by its own body of management, governing body and trustees. There is no plan to repeal the Acts of Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which established the Imperial Institute and later the Commonwealth Institute.

Korea

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of relations between North and South Korea.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is too soon to know how the new leadership in Pyongyang will approach relations with South Korea, but we hope that the death of Kim Il-sung will not lead to a lengthy postponement of the summit talks between South and North Korea earlier planned for this month.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that the words "North Korea" are merely shorthand for the dangers posed by nuclear proliferation? Has he seen reports that North Korea may have as many as six—certainly at least two—nuclear devices which it is seeking to develop to a state in which it can deliver them overseas? Is he aware that North Korea is trading in nuclear technologies with a number of countries whose interests are not favourable to ours? Will he use the hiatus caused by the death of the North Korean leader to accelerate rather than decelerate pressure on that country to reduce nuclear proliferation?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no hard evidence that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. There must be suspicions, however, because North Korea does not allow the necessary international inspections which would assure us that plutonium is not being diverted. We take the drive against nuclear proliferation extremely seriously. We are glad that North Korea has not denounced the nonproliferation treaty, and we hope very much that it will allow the necessary inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr. Winnick: In the context of North Korea, does the Minister know whether Marxism-Leninism now accepts entirely the Conservative principle of hereditary succession? Will Ministers be writing to congratulate the North Korean leadership on a new development in Marxism-Leninism?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: They do like to try to keep it in the family in such countries. That is a feature of Marxist dictatorships. The succession to the leadership is a matter for the North Koreans. It is important to note that the dictator concerned is one of the last vestiges of a socialist world order that is now widely discredited.

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is pretty well established that both Iran and Iraq have been spending substantial sums—Iran has been spending up to $0.5 billion every year—on nuclear proliferation. Much of the technology has been transferred to Iran and Iraq from North Korea and China. Does my hon. Friend have any clear plan to deal with that? It would seem that the policy of nonproliferation has pretty well failed in many countries and that we should be looking to something much harsher.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that non-proliferation has failed. We are working to achieve an indefinite extension to the non-proliferation treaty. We are also working to negotiate a comprehensive test ban, provided that it is part of a wider move to prevent proliferation, especially among the states that my hon. Friend mentioned.

China

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relationships with the Chinese Government.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Relations with China have improved recently. On Hong Kong, we have reached agreement on defence lands and have made progress in our discussions on financing the new airport. Our trade figures show a 72 per cent. increase in direct exports to China last year and a 22 per cent. increase in the first quarter of this year. We also have an active dialogue on human rights and international and United Nations matters. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), will be visiting China from tomorrow.

Mr. O'Brien: What representations did the Government make to the Chinese Government after the underground nuclear test on 10 June, which was conducted in defiance of international opinion and in breach of an international moratorium? Can the Minister able assure the House that that second underground nuclear test in nine months met with firm representations from the Government and that difficult relations over Hong Kong did not prevent the Government from expressing concerns about real and important nuclear issues?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. We have expressed our disapproval of the continuing underground testing in China and I am glad that China has at least indicated its intention to participate in negotiations for a comprehensive test ban.

Mr. Waterson: Despite the public rhetoric of the Chinese Government, will my hon. Friend continue to keep the pressure on them to accept the democratic through train up to and beyond 1997?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will doubtless be carrying those discussions forward during his forthcoming visit.

Mr. Gapes: When will the Government next have discussions on Bosnia in the United Nations Security Council? Will the Government be trying to work with the Chinese to veto any move by the United States to lift the arms embargo? In view of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—and of the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said that he was against the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo—may we have a categorical assurance that our Government will not give way to misguided pressure from the American Congress and President Clinton but will work with others to stop the lifting of the arms embargo?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it known to the United States Government that any unilateral move of the sort suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be strongly deprecated.

Embassies (Science and Technology Sections)

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the criteria for the establishment of a specialised science and technology section within British embassies abroad.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Science and technology work is carried out by different sections within a wide range of our overseas posts, as appropriate and in response to demand.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that scientists and businesses in the United Kingdom are kept aware of developing science and technology in other countries, particularly in the United States? Will he explain why he has decided that the science and technology counsellor in Washington can be absorbed into another section when the German embassy in Washington maintains a section of five people, the French embassy maintains a section of six people, and the Chinese embassy maintains a section of 11 people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I believe that we are extremely well served by the new arrangements established in Washington. We have created responsibilities at counsellor level for a counsellor with science and technology responsibility and also in other areas, including transport, energy and the environment, in line with the kind of arrangements which prevail in Paris, Bonn and elsewhere. We also have one full-time first secretary below him and a part-time first secretary assisting him.
The hon. Lady makes a comparison between France, Germany and Japan, or perhaps it was China. She should be aware that the academic contact between British academics and American academics, because of the common language and culture, is very extensive indeed and, I am sure, nothing like so extensive in the countries that she mentioned.

South Pacific Forum

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to visit the south Pacific forum in Brisbane this summer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), will take part in a post-forum dialogue which follows the south Pacific forum in Brisbane.

Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend understand the concern that Britain's role in the region is not always as significant as it once was? Against that background, does he understand the welcome that will be given to my right hon. Friend's visit to Brisbane, emphasising the fact that we must take a very close interest in the affairs of the south Pacific?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our annual attendance at ministerial level in discussions following the conference shows the importance that we attach to the area. There will be an opportunity to identify shared policy priorities and objectives. My right hon. Friend will continue with his visits in Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, we maintain a significant aid programme in the area which shows our continuing interest.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the contortions of a slightly earlier question, will the Minister consider, on his way to visit the south Pacific forum in Brisbane this summer, the necessity to apologise to the Chinese Government for the—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a little way out geographically.

Middle East

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I welcome Mr. Arafat's return to Gaza and Jericho, which symbolises progress in the peace process. We shall continue to provide assistance to his new Administration. We welcome recent progress on the Jordanian track of the peace process and hope for progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Earlier, the Minister skated rather rapidly over the question of the boycott. Why is it that France, Germany and America and various other countries have very firm anti-boycott legislation, but the British Government, who know that British businesses are losing out in this matter, absolutely refuse to support the European directive or to introduce legislation in this House which would outlaw such activities?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that legislation would be helpful. We have already been successful in persuading the Arab states to relax the boycott. I have already spoken of the relaxation in the secondary and tertiary boycotts. Israel is now the third most important United Kingdom export market in the middle east, and there have been substantial increases in UK exports to Israel. That shows that the boycott is extraordinarily ineffective.

Cyprus

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between the United Kingdom and Cyprus.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our relationship with Cyprus is close. We regard the division of the island since 1974 as damaging and unacceptable. We continue to work, both at the United Nations and in our capacity as a guarantor power, for a peaceful, just and lasting settlement. We believe that the package of confidence-building measures put forward by the UN offers the best way to make progress towards such a settlement. The gap between the two parties is now narrow. I hope that they will be able to seize the present opportunity to take a decisive step forward.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be quite wrong for Mr. Denktash to have a right of veto over Cyprus's application to join the European Union? May we have an assurance that the Government will support that application, whether or not the current measures lead to agreement?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We do support and have supported the application. Neither Mr. Denktash nor anyone else has a veto over the application, but we recognise the difficulties of bringing in a divided island: that is why the position will be reviewed by a European Union observer at the start of next year.

Civil Service

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper on the civil service, published today.
It is nearly 150 years since the Northcote-Trevelyan report first laid out the principles of a professional civil service, accountable through Ministers to Parliament, recruited on merit, politically impartial and dominated by a high ideal of the value of public service. Over the years since, the civil service has seen the demands laid upon it change in ways that could not have been imagined then. But the core principles established at that time have remained unaltered. They have served the country well; they continue to do so.
Today's White Paper therefore reaffirms those same fundamental principles. These principles help us to live in a decent society, but they have economic value, too. No one should underestimate the advantage we get from the justified reputation we have as a country in which our public service is honest, competent and apolitical.
None the less, no organisation can stand still in changing times. The public rightly expect to see continuing improvements in the standards of service in the public sector within the resources which can be afforded. That is why this Government have introduced a series of wide-ranging reforms, now brought together under the banner of the citizens charter, aimed at delivering better service ever more efficiently. These include the financial management initiative, the next steps programme, the efficiency reviews and the "Competing for Quality" programme.
I believe that the House should pay tribute to the way the civil service has handled these and other initiatives. They have already produced marked increases in both performance and efficiency. The size of the civil service is at its lowest level since the second world war, and the new structures are showing considerable gains in efficiency. The White Paper published today sets out how the Government see these reforms being taken forward and draws together the implications for the future of the civil service.
One central principle of management unites all these reforms—that of delegation to and within properly accountable organisations. We should now take further steps in that same direction, building on what we know works, rather than going off in a new direction.
But it is a fact that the most radical change so far has been in those parts of the civil service, much the largest in terms of numbers, which provide service directly to the public. The role of departmental headquarters and of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury now needs to change, too. The central role should be to set tough targets and to monitor performance on the basis of better information than we have at present. But staff throughout the civil service should be given the power to manage and operate in ways that best meet their particular tasks and needs, rather than within a single, central blueprint, adequate for all, but well fitted to none. We therefore intend to carry the next steps process further.
The Government propose that Departments should take greater responsibility for deciding their organisational structures, the pay of their staff and the best mix of

efficiency measures to meet the never-ending pressure to raise standards within tight running costs. Departments themselves should judge, for example, how best to use privatisation, contracting out and market testing. Centrally driven initiatives have shown in recent years how more competition and choice improves quality and reduces costs: Departments themselves must now take these well-established policies forward if we are to see the full benefit from them. The central Departments should continue to measure, monitor and report to Parliament, but with less second guessing of Departments' plans.
To do that, we need better information systems and more modern accounting practices. The Prime Minister has therefore asked the efficiency unit to conduct a scrutiny on management information systems and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is publishing today a Green Paper on resource accounting and budgeting. The Green Paper paves the way for important reforms of the way in which we account for public money and opens up the possibility of changes in the way in which the Government plan their spending, both of which will complement the changes that I am proposing in the White Paper.
Departments will be given the freedom to determine their own management structures at all levels matched to their own needs. We expect them to be tauter and flatter than now. The Government propose to extend the delegation of pay and grading—which at present covers around 60 per cent. of the civil service—to cover all civil servants below the senior civil service. I shall return to pay arrangements for the latter in a moment.
The senior civil service needs to support both the collective responsibility of Government and the particular responsibilities of Departments, and to underpin both policy making and high-quality service delivery. But it, too, cannot be immune from change. It needs changing qualities and skills to match its changing tasks. The Government published an efficiency unit report on those issues last winter, known as the Oughton report, and the White Paper includes the Government's response. The Government accept the efficiency unit's main recommendations, but propose additional changes. Our main conclusions are as follows.
To strengthen cohesion across the civil service and bring in all those with substantial management responsibilities, the Government propose to create a new senior civil service, including those broadly down to the present grade 5 level. It will include up to 3,500 people.
There should be more interchange between this senior civil service—and, indeed, the rest of the civil service—and outside employees. Open competition should become a more normal part of the process for selecting people for senior appointments. It need not be used in every case, but it should be considered in every case. Such competitions must be superintended, as now, by the Civil Service Commissioners, independently of Ministers, to guard against the possibility of politicisation. I am publishing today, alongside the White Paper, a report on the future role of the commissioners. I myself believe that if the civil service is as good as it should be at training and career development, most senior posts are likely still to be held by insiders, as they would be in most big firms; but we should set no targets one way or the other.
Next, the Government propose to introduce explicit written employment contracts for members of the new senior civil service. For the great majority, they will


provide for employment for an indefinite term, but with specified periods of notice. Fixed-term and rolling contracts would also be used as appropriate.
As figures in the White Paper show, it is a myth that the civil service is an organisation in which people serve as a matter of course until retiring age. Substantial numbers of senior staff have left early in recent years and that is likely to continue.
Finally, the White Paper proposes that a new, more flexible pay system should be introduced for this group. There should be a range for permanent secretaries' pay, with the positions of individuals determined by a remuneration committee with a majority of non-civil service members. Below that, we propose a system of wider, overlapping pay bands broadly linked to levels of responsibility, with progression based on performance, giving more room for manoeuvre to Departments to change their structure to fit their needs. As a first step, the Government will implement the wider pay ranges recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for the present grades 2 and 3 and will ask the review body to recommend a pay range for permanent secretaries. Those proposals will, in time, allow for greater differentiation in individuals' pay within the overall pay bill. No immediate pay increases are entailed.
The proposals for greater delegation to Departments and reform of the senior civil service represent a considerable further challenge for the civil service. We are seeking to raise standards of service within tight control of running costs. Staff numbers will continue to fall, from 533,000 at present to significantly below 500,000, with reductions at all levels. Wherever possible, that will be achieved through natural wastage and by voluntary departures. From the autumn of this year, the Treasury will give special assistance to Departments with any additional costs.
The Government believe that the civil service is fully capable of achieving what we have asked of it. It will be helped to do that by the greater flexibilities and the management changes that I have announced, against the background of the reaffirmation of the old strengths and values which underpin the civil service, which the Government have reaffirmed today, and with which, I believe, the whole House will concur. The civil service must continue to offer attractive and exciting careers to talented people who wish to serve their country in some of our most important and challenging jobs and it will be helped to do so by up-to-date organisations and structures.
The civil service has a unique role maintaining our unwritten constitution. It does not belong to one Government or party. The Government, therefore, plan to consult Opposition parties as well as others with an interest in the proposals that I have outlined today. We shall, of course, consider carefully the forthcoming report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
The Government's objective in publishing the White Paper is to map a way forward for the civil service to the end of the century and beyond. The result will be a smaller civil service, more flexible in organisation, better able to respond to changing tasks, properly rewarded on the basis of responsibilities and performance and offering challenging careers for both staff and managers with a reaffirmed commitment to the unchanging principle of public service. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The statement is a menu for the accelerated privatisation of the civil

service, which threatens to destroy the constitutional principles on which the civil service has rested for 150 years since Northcote-Trevelyan. Those principles include ministerial accountability, the unity of the civil service and the public service ethic as the standard for civil servants' actions. All of them will be undermined by the statement.
The right hon. Gentleman is squeezing out around 50,000 jobs by cutting the running costs of Departments. Is not that a wholly arbitrary exercise, in which he has abdicated his responsibility for the overall direction and general goals of the civil service? Is not he doing that because market testing has manifestly failed, even though he has constantly exaggerated the forecasted savings from the exercise?
The right hon. Gentleman said that centralised pay bargaining in Whitehall would end. Is not he reneging on long-term civil service pay agreements into which the Government solemnly and unequivocally entered two years ago? Will he tell the House how many hundreds more civil servants will be needed to negotiate pay agreements in each Department? Does he recognise that there will be a massive duplication of bureaucracy with the creation of at least 150 separate pay-bargaining units, and that 3,000 civil servants must be trained for that? Currently it is done by a mere 40 in the Treasury.
Will this be a repetition of what happened two years ago when the Government introduced performance-related pay, when nine Government Departments individually approached Andersen Consulting and paid nine fat fees for the same advice? As for personal contracts and performance pay for the top 2,000 civil servants, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to measure the performance of a top civil servant—by how much he pleases the Minister?
On open competition for top posts, is not it true that Ministers make the final choice of appointee and that, despite the right hon. Gentleman's denials, his proposed changes will open the way for more politicisation of the civil service, which the Government have taken too far already? Does not he recall the then Home Secretary a few years ago insisting on appointing as head of the Prisons Agency a man who had no knowledge or experience of the prison service, but whose private sector views made him ideologically sound? This Government have quangoised Britain with their own political placemen. Are they now going to do the same for the top ranks of the civil service?
Why is there no mention of equal opportunities in the civil service, with the right hon. Gentleman's retention of the elitist fast stream entry to top jobs? The real objection to this White Paper is that it has no vision. The public do have concerns about the civil service—about how Ministers increasingly rule by fiat and compromise civil servants' political neutrality; about what Pergau and the Scott inquiry reveal about the secrecy culture in Whitehall; and about the dismantling of an institution which has hitherto been the envy of the world. None of these matters which really worry the public are dealt with in the statement. It is not just a missed opportunity: it is a major backward step from the good governance of our country.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), as usual, gets it almost entirely wrong. I believe that he will find that he has misjudged the White Paper and the mood of the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked, as if it were a difficult question, how we can measure the performance of senior


civil servants—[Interruption.]—clearly showing himself as unaware as is his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who is misadvising him, that senior civil servants have been on performance pay for many years.
Next, the hon. Gentleman mistakenly asked whether Ministers make the final choice. That is not true. The Civil Service Commission makes the final choice. I have today published a paper—the hon. Gentleman should study it—which rightly explains the role of the commission. If it is necessary, as I believe it is, to bring in more people to the senior civil service to gain their experience, those jobs must not be politicised. It is therefore vital that the choice remains with the Civil Service Commission.
Nothing in the White Paper or in the Government's reforms changes ministerial accountability to this House, or the accountability of civil servants, through Ministers, to this House.
Typically, in a recent article, the hon. Member for Oldham, West claimed that the Government intended to reduce the numbers of civil servants to 50,000. We intend, I hope, to reduce their numbers to below 500,000—the hon. Gentleman got the decimal point wrong, just as he has got virtually everything else wrong on this occasion.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his advisers on the hard thinking and hard work that have gone into the White Paper.
Will the Government acknowledge that the wider recruitment and wider exchanges that they seek as between the senior civil service and the private sector will come about in practice only if pay amounts as well as pay structures in the senior civil service are made comparable with those in the private sector? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend press for an early debate in Government time, as soon as the House returns, on these important proposals?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, I will, of course, report to the Leader of the House what my hon. Friend has said.
Needless to say, the Select Committee is already engaged in cross-examinations on my hon. Friend's point, and I look forward to appearing before a sub-committee of the Select Committee next week to discuss it.
We believe that there should be more competition for the top jobs; that is the challenge that we offer the civil service. The other side of the coin must be that we develop the capacity over time to respond in terms of pay, so that these jobs attract a reward commensurate with the competition that they entail. That will take time. There is no overnight pay increase in the White Paper; but we need greater flexibility and wider pay bands to enable the civil service to attract its fair share of people from outside on equal terms.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The White Paper has much in it to be commended. It is important not to oppose change merely for the sake of opposing it, but the record of Ministers shows that they have often favoured change merely for its own sake, particularly in respect of privatisation.
The White Paper does not deal well enough with the worry that, with greater flexibility at senior levels of the civil service and with greater emphasis on performance

among those who give advice, the robust independence of the civil service will be affected. That is not addressed in the White Paper and it needs to be addressed more seriously by Ministers. The one great gaping hole—

Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman and the House have seen, a number of hon. Members are seeking to ask questions. I want questions and not statements now.

Mr. Taylor: There is a gaping hole in the White Paper that I would ask the Minister to address: why are the same rules, the same issues of independence and proper public appointment subject to independent scrutiny not being applied to the great growth areas of the state—the trusts, quangos and appointees subject to ministerial appointment—when the Minister places such importance on the independence of the civil service?

Mr. Waldegrave: The White Paper addresses head on the essential point that the hon. Gentleman fairly makes. Its entire first chapter deals with the importance of maintaining a robustly apolitical and independent civil service. I have absolutely no doubt that, should by some misfortune the Labour party or the hon. Member's party find their way into power, the civil service would serve them with exactly the same loyalty with which it has served us. Anybody who doubts that is casting an aspersion against the civil service. We reaffirm that today and I join the hon. Gentleman in reiterating its importance.
The hon. Member's second point is a real one. My right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Health has just published guidelines for the selection and conduct of trust boards and the Treasury has just republished and reinforced its guidance on appointments to non-departmental bodies. They are separate matters from the issues that we are looking at today, but they are important and should and are being addressed.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend accept that any savings to the taxpayer as a result of the White Paper will be welcomed by Conservative Members, unlike the Opposition, who have no regard to the British taxpayer? He said that he hopes to reduce the civil service by some 33,000 to around 500,000. Are those all going to be saved posts or will any be contracted out? If they are all saved, that is a reduction of something like 6 per cent. in the overall head count. Does he agree that it is still rather conservative compared with the reduction in overheads that most private companies have had to make during the recession? Does he agree that our investment in information technology in the civil service has not produced the return it should have done?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right to say that, when we look at our own organisations, we should consider the very rapid change undertaken by large organisations outside, many of which have had to undertake change quicker under the compulsion of the markets than we have achieved. None the less, I pay tribute to the civil service because it has changed fast. The fall in numbers—that is a gain in efficiency and a return for the taxpayers who pay for us all—has been faster in recent years than in the period running back to 1979, though there has been a considerable drop in numbers since then. Some jobs will be contracted out or privatised, some will go because we analyse that there is no need for the function at


all, and others will be go due to sheer efficiency gains. In the past 18 months, the ratio of efficiency gains to contracting out has been running at about 60:40.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's claim that so much of the reform is apolitical, is he aware that one of its serious aspects is the way in which fixed-term appointments will be made? Who will decide, when the term ends, whether that person will be reappointed? Is that not the time when the Minister concerned can exert his own pressure? Finally, 108 members of the Government are paid for out of public funds. We are reducing the numbers of civil servants, yet the numbers of Ministers have increased year by year. Why does he not turn his attention to that?

Mr. Waldegrave: The latter point may be for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rather than being my direct responsibility. On the former point, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have come down against fixed-term contracts for the generality of the new contracts that will be negotiated. They must be negotiated with the staff for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman gives. The cliff edge might produce a sense of insecurity and it is part of an efficient and apolitical civil service to give advice to their political masters that may not be welcome; civil servants should have the confidence to do that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will this pruning and semi-privatisation of the civil service apply across the board in Northern Ireland? Will it apply to both the Northern Ireland Office and the Departments in Northern Ireland? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the people of Northern Ireland that—contrary to pressures from Dublin—any new members of the Northern Ireland civil service will be appointed, as they are in this part of the United Kingdom, solely on the basis of merit rather than religion?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Northern Ireland civil service is a separate body; however, the principles underlying our proposals apply to it with equal force. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be considering how, and to what extent, they might be implemented in the particular circumstances of the Northern Ireland civil service.
The Northern Ireland civil service selects on merit, and the principles—well known to the hon. Gentleman—according to which it seeks to extend the pool from which it selects to all communities are an important part of that.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee will need to examine the details of the White Paper and discuss them with him? Personally, I welcome the fact that the Government have seen the need to reassert the essential values of the civil service at this time. I am also pleased that they recognise that the service is not the property of any one party, and are prepared to consult the Opposition; and that the Select Committee will have a role in considering its future.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to reaffirm the importance of the Select Committee's work. We have explicitly stated in the White Paper that we shall await its report before reaching any final conclusions. It has taken an interest in a number of aspects—for instance, civil service Acts and statutory backing for ethical codes. I must say that

the hon. Gentleman seems to show more understanding of both the issues and the sense of the House than does his Front-Bench spokesman.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is one of the few countries in which corruption at the top levels of Government is almost unknown? That is largely due to the dedication and high integrity of senior civil servants. Is my right hon. Friend confident that introducing an increasing number of people from an entirely different ethos, and without such long training, will not lead to a lowering of standards, with serious consequences for our political life?

Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend has said. We should be proud of the standards in our civil service. As I said in my statement, they not only make life better in this country, but provide an economic advantage: people invest here in the knowledge that the British officials with whom they will deal are not corrupt.
As for my hon. Friend's second point, let me remind him that during the war many people who entered the civil service—I think of, for instance, Roger Sherfield and Oliver Franks—greatly added to its strength. We have lost something of that since the war has become more distant. If we can widen the pool of able people who wish to serve the public by working in the civil service at some point in their careers, I do not think that that implies any lowering of standards. The great men and women who served at that time, and later, reinforce my belief.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have delivered his piece with a little less rattle and a little more conviction. Do the Government really intend to pursue the introduction of performance-related pay in the higher echelons of the civil service? How on earth can such performance be measured?

Mr. Waldegrave: I would not want to compete with the hon. Gentleman in terms of rattle. There is virtually no organisation in the world, including the British senior civil service, that does not have some measure of performance-related pay. [Interruption.] The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) are decades out of date if they think that people have not been addressing these problems and solving them perfectly satisfactorily.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I notice that my right hon. Friend's statement does not refer to the Fulton report. Is not it true that the philosophy of that committee, which was established by a Labour Government, is followed by the bold and imaginative ideas that my right hon. Friend has outlined today, particularly in terms of the need for a widening of recruitment into the civil service and for greater management efficiency? In terms of the accountability of the senior civil service to the House, is it possible that the Select Committee system has some part to play in the appointment of certain members of the senior civil service?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right that part of the important advice from the Fulton committee was that we should achieve a greater interchange and wider experience in people's careers before they reach the top of the public service. That has not happened enough, although it has happened to a considerable degree and we want it to happen more. We are abolishing one thing that was derived


from the Fulton report, the senior open structure down to grade 3, because we have come to the conclusion that that is too narrow a basis for the unified cross-departmental senior civil service that we need. As we need better devolution to Departments and less Treasury and Cabinet Office interference in the management of Departments, we also need to retain a capacity to move people laterally. That is why we have established the new senior civil service structure.

Mr. Tony Benn: The Minister's statement will require careful examination, but will he answer some questions? If power is to be devolved to civil servants in Departments who will no longer be accountable to Ministers for many aspects, is not it true that an incoming Government might regard the friends who have been brought in by this Government as wholly unsuitable and be entitled to remove them on the grounds that their performance is of a political character, quite unacceptable to the decision reached by the electors, which normally removes the Ministers who run the civil service?
Is not it also true that all the fine language used by the Minister is a cover for a return to the "spoils system" which has ruined the American civil service and which goes back before the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms and will ultimately create great distrust among the public about the operations of the civil service because it is being put on the basis of accepting the Government's political philosophy which is wholly foreign now to the majority in this country?

Mr. Waldegrave: If the reforms did any of those things, I would join the right hon. Gentleman in opposing them. It would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to heed his own advice, which is that what we are saying does require close attention. What will be devolved is structures, pay and management matters. Accountability for those matters lies ultimately through the Minister to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience—I have read his diaries on many of these points—often found himself resenting detailed management intervention from the central Departments. If we can find ways of minimising that within proper accountability structures, we will have done something valuable.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real reasons why we get into the mess that we do with respect to the amount of money spent on the civil service is the legislative burden that both sides of the House impose on it? Would not it be sensible, in the light of the review that is taking place, for us to consider reducing the duties imposed through Acts of Parliament which drive so many of the increases in duties imposed on our civil servants and in the functions imposed on the people of this country?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, has launched the major deregulation initiative. Over the years, under all Governments, we have found ourselves steadily increasing the amount of regulation that we ask the civil service to carry through—and it carries it through efficiently on all occasions. We then find that we have placed new burdens

on industry and on our population, which we regret. I accept the principle of what my hon. Friend said and we are introducing measures under the vigorous leadership of our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Is the Minister aware that many people will regard the White Paper not as a clear, bold blueprint for the future, but as a rather patchy, inconclusive mish-mash? Will he confirm that his Cabinet colleagues, led bravely by the Foreign Secretary, threw out some of his more ludicrous, extreme proposals, and that what remains in the White Paper will not lead to the creeping politicisation and deprofessionalisation of the senior civil service which many fear? Does not he agree that, to overcome the serious concerns and worries that have been expressed by hon. Members this afternoon, he should consider introducing a new code of ethics that will govern and safeguard the neutrality, standards and professional independence of the civil service?

Mr. Waldegrave: I did not notice the hon. Gentleman under the table at the Cabinet discussions; perhaps he was there. I do not think that he knows how they went. The result is a policy and a White Paper which have been whole-heartedly endorsed, as I believe my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will confirm, by every senior Minister in the Cabinet and elsewhere. The code of ethics point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a real one, but he should note that, last year, we brought together for the first time in the civil service management code all relevant documents, including the Armstrong memorandum and other important documents. It is vital that they are properly disseminated. They are part of the terms of service in the civil service. We await what the Select Committee says on the matter. The hon. Gentleman and I have no argument on the importance of maintaining that code. The Select Committee may wish to advise us on whether the code should be statutorily backed in some way. Now, as in the past, it is binding on civil servants and it must remain so.

Mr. Michael Shersby: To what extent does my right hon. Friend expect competition for the top jobs in the civil service to result in an inflow of permanent secretaries from outside? Will he give an assurance that such a move will maintain and enhance the standards of public service which the House is entitled to expect and which the Public Accounts Committee considers twice a week and on which it reports to the House every Session?

Mr. Waldegrave: Eight out of the present 35 permanent secretaries came from outside, including the head of the Treasury, so the process started some time ago. I do not know whether the number will increase. That depends ultimately on the skill, determination and resources that we put into the training of our people to enable them to compete properly. As for the service of the public and of the House, we must look at as wide a field as possible to employ the best possible people.

Dr. Tony Wright: Can the Minister say why it was sensible to make his statement on the White Paper before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee had completed its investigation into this matter? Why was it sensible to have overlooked the recent, devastating conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee, which said that standards in the conduct of public business were at their lowest point since before the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms and that the reason for that


decline was the increased inter-penetration of the public and private sectors and the erosion of the public service tradition? Why was it sensible further to erode that tradition rather than to deal with the issue? If it is sensible for the Civil Service Commission to consider new appointments to the senior civil service, would not it also be sensible to have a public appointments commission—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have asked for brief questions. I am attempting to assist hon. Members and call as many of them as possible, but I am not getting the co-operation from them to which I am entitled. I intend to have it from now on.

Mr. Waldegrave: On timing, we would have been happy if the Select Committee had finished its work first, but it did not seem possible to wait indefinitely. As we can consult it further, it seemed sensible, as we had finished our work, to publish the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman provides a travesty of what the PAC report said. In the clearest terms, it stated that there was nothing in the reformed structures that inherently or in any way threatened public accountability or standards, but that in a more devolved system—and I accept that this is right—it is necessary to take even more trouble to ensure that everyone understands what his or her duties and responsibilities are.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that market accountability is not the same as democratic accountability and that both are required from the public service? Will he describe to the House the Government's view of the principle that should determine the balance between them?

Mr. Waldegrave: What drives the public service is accountability ultimately to the democratic process. There are certain parts of the public sector into which, if one does it properly, one can introduce choice and competition to the benefit of standards in general. However, in no sense is the public sector comparable to the market; otherwise, those things should be in the market. It is much better to privatise something which really should be in the market, and that is what we believe in. There is a distinction, or the Government would not be in this business in the first place. Nevertheless, there are things that can be learnt from private sector markets to the benefit of both sides.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the record and standing of this Administration are such that they will commend this policy to the public? Is he really happy with the contraction which has occurred and which now means that if our constituents write to certain Government Departments, the chances are that their letters will be mislaid?

Mr. Waldegrave: As a matter of fact, I believe that the performance of Departments in responding to letters has steadily improved in recent years, but where there are failings, they must be put right. That is a perfectly proper thing to do. The principle that I am setting out—giving Departments the chance to organise themselves properly to deal with the tasks that they face—will help with such problems where they exist rather than hinder.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he is managing with skill the latest stage in a process which began with the Fulton commission

under a Labour Government and continued with the White Paper on central Government reorganisation in 1970? This is the latest stage, so it has taken about a quarter of a century to get things moving which, I suppose, is quick by British standards. However, will he accept two caveats? First, our nation has a fine tradition of public service, which we must do nothing to damage. Secondly, in giving more accountability and separate management control to Departments, as we planned 25 years ago, will he ensure that there is still plenty of movement between Departments, especially between the Department of Trade and Industry and the foreign service?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend says about the standards and principles that lie behind our public service. He is right to say that the origin of a fair amount of the White Paper goes back a good many years—he said about 25 years, and that may be fair. In fact, that exactly parallels the time that it took to introduce the original Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, which were not fully implemented until the 1870s.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Why have the Government retained the fast stream for top management jobs? Does not it place a severe limitation on people getting to the top on merit?

Mr. Waldegrave: The study that was published today on the so-called fast stream, which the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) so dislikes—I should say that we issued a report partly in response to the hon. Member's badgering, so I must pay tribute to him for that—concluded that there is no large employer that does not have some means of trying to get hold of a share of the best output from universities and colleges. What is wrong is the name "fast stream", which gives the impression that the people involved in it have some privileged route to the top, whereas, in fact, they have not. It would hobble the civil service most unfairly in the jobs market if it were not allowed to go on what is called the "milk round" to try to get its share of the best people from our universities.

Mr. James Paice: May I welcome especially the delegation of responsibility for the management of budgets down through the senior civil service? Is not it the case that with delegation comes responsibility for more effective decision making? Have not the Opposition perhaps missed the fact that with responsibility ultimately comes a great deal of job satisfaction for people who have been deprived of any responsibility in the past?

Mr. Waldegrave: The point that my hon. Friend makes seems entirely right. It was accepted by the Labour party when the original next steps programme was introduced. Although the party's then spokesman, the late John Smith, criticised the Government on other matters, he accepted that devolution was a sensible way to proceed, and I believe that he was right to do so. When the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has calmed down, I am sure that he, too, will find that it is the sensible thing to do.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As most women working in the civil service are in the secretarial and clerical grades, what proposals has the Minister for increasing equality of opportunity for both men and women across the grades in the civil service?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that there was nothing about equality of opportunity in the White Paper. In fact, there is a considerable passage. I believe that the civil service is a good equal opportunities employer and, in terms of the proportion of applicants, the numbers entering the service are about right. We are getting better at employing more senior women. That is necessary, but there is much more to do, and also more to do in reaching out to people in the ethnic minority communities. The White Paper addresses that subject, too.

Mr. Barry Field: While my right hon. Friend is busy pushing his new broom through the corridors of Whitehall, will he consider the fact that one of the greatest impediments to the transfer of employees from the public to the private sector and vice versa is their pension entitlement? Will he share with the House his thoughts on what he intends to do about that?

Mr. Waldegrave: The imbalance in pension entitlements was at its most acute when there was very high inflation. I have not heard private sector employers arguing about it so much since then. In the schemes that we now have in place for swapping people to and fro, which are welcome both to private industry and to the civil service, we have not found such factors to be a bar.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Privatisation has led to the disappearance of a Department of State—the Department of Energy—and is leading to further uncoupling of the work of the Department of Trade and Industry, and to the disappearance of the accountability for measures to the House. The next steps agencies are taking over from Departments, and often run things in a rubbishy fashion. Does not the Minister realise that in the end a small civil service might be a manipulative civil service—in fact, no civil service at all?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is a good deal of rubbish in what the hon. Gentleman says. I remember a Conservative Government setting up the Department of Energy. That was nothing to do with privatisation, and the fact that energy policy is now run from within the DTI is nothing to do with privatisation either. When the hon. Gentleman attacks the "rubbishy" next steps agencies, he should remember that he is attacking two thirds of the civil service. I do not believe that that is right. The hon. Gentleman will find in the White Paper evidence of the fact that, according to a whole range of indicators, the performance of the next steps agencies is improving services to the people who rely on them. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should study the evidence that we have placed in the Library. If he does so, he will tind that he is wrong.

Mr. Michael Brown: In connection with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) concerning fixed-term contracts, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the White Paper says anything about the principle of secondment? Does not that principle provide the opportunity, on a two-way basis, for people from the civil service to play a role in industry and vice versa? Does the White Paper say anything about that?

Mr. Waldegrave: It does; it endorses the importance of more secondments and of those who work with the civil

service to arrange them. I have in my Department several secondees from outside; they make a valuable contribution and I believe that it helps to develop their careers in the private sector, too. Equally, those from the civil service who go out find that their careers are enhanced. I do not believe, as some Opposition Members seem to, that any threat arises from the mixing of the public and private sector cultures. Both gain from it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister has been anxious to assure us of the political impartiality of new entrants into his new model senior civil service. Will he confirm here and now that active participation in one's local Conservative association will be a disqualification rather than the qualification for a new entrant?

Mr. Waldegrave: The rules on that are perfectly clear. Those who work for political parties on either side—presumably there are people on the Labour side who are also inconvenienced—are subject to the published code, which the hon. Gentleman can find in the Library. There is no more difficulty on that subject now than in the past.

Mr. Anthony Steen: It was a jolly good statement, and the whole House is most grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We much enjoyed the statement, but one inherent danger was not mentioned—the likelihood that the civil servants who are left when others have been removed will become more over-zealous and officious. Will the rules and regulations be more over-zealously enforced by the remaining numbers? Surely the raison d'être—if my right hon. Friend will excuse the phrase—of the civil service is that civil servants must serve the public, that they must help to create jobs and that they must help to create wealth in the private sector. Is not that the test of the civil service today?

Mr. Waldegrave: The overwhelming raison d'être—the use of the phrase "raison d'être" by my hon. Friend is slightly surprising, now that I come to think of it—or duty of the civil service is to serve the system of ministerial accountability properly and to carry out the duties laid on it ultimately by the House. It is ultimately the House which should take the responsibility for over-regulation and which should take steps to diminish it. It should not blame over-regulation on the civil service. That is why it is a political matter, for us as the Conservative party, to lead the campaign against over-regulation which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched at our party conference.

Dr. Liam Fox: Can my right hon. Friend put the streamlining of the civil service into context by telling us what has happened to total civil service numbers since the Government came to power so that the House and the country can differentiate between the Government's love for less government and the bloated bureaucracy left and loved by the Labour party?

Mr. Waldegrave: The highest number the civil service achieved—if that is quite the right word—was under the previous Labour Government. We have brought the number down from 732,000 in 1979 by almost exactly 200,000. That is an achievement of which we should be proud. We should also be proud of the fact that the smaller civil service is carrying great burdens and doing great work with greater efficiency than was the case then.

Mr. Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major achievements of our civil service over the past century has been its ability to evolve and to develop in response to changing circumstances and needs? Does he accept that the White Paper published today advances that fine tradition? It looks yet again at cutting out inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy and it seeks to improve even more standards of efficiency and user-friendly services, both for those who receive them at the sharp end and for the civil servants themselves.

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that my hon. Friend is right and I also believe that if one gives a clear task and a clear challenge to the civil service, it always shows itself willing to meet it. The gains in efficiency that we are seeing and the gains in service to the customer—the patient, the pupil and everyone who relies on the civil service—are genuine. The civil service should be congratulated on them. Civil servants understand as well as we do that the search for efficiency gains never ends.

Mr. Michael Bates: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the many thousands of my constituents who are employed in the private sector, who have often learnt at great personal cost of the need in the modern world for ever-increasing efficiency and productivity and who have realised that there is no such thing as a right to a job for life, will be pleased to learn that the rules that apply to them are about to apply to the people whose salaries they pay?

Mr. Waldegrave: What my hon. Friend says is right. We have a duty in the House to the taxpayer as well as to the public service. I believe that the balancing of those two has been achieved in the White Paper. We need to continue the drive for efficiency, but we also need to protect the apolitical, independent nature of our civil service. I believe that the White Paper achieves that.

Mr. John Garrett: Surely the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman, nominally the Minister for the civil service, has simply copped out. Rather than produce a policy for the future of the civil service, he has

signalled the start of a competition between Ministers to fire as many civil servants as possible. The results will be purely arbitrary, with the fast streamers and mandarins, like him, getting off exceptionally lightly and junior jobs going in their thousands. The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, so why did he stop it carrying out a direct investigation of the civil service? Will he ask his successor to reconsider these thoroughly incompetent proposals?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman achieves a new low. He always manages to go below the level of the subject, but today he has managed to get right under the carpet. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. In recent years, the proportion of those leaving has been higher from the senior civil service than from the civil service more widely. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the wireless this morning, he would have heard the First Division Association pointing that out.
I have answered questions in the House before about the survey of the civil service. The issue is perfectly simple. As the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) demonstrate all the time, those matters, at least for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, although not for all the Back Benchers, are of political dispute. If we involved the opinions of civil servants in that political knockabout and we identified those opinions, we would have done more at a stroke to damage the political impartiality of the civil service than if we had done anything else.

BILL PRESENTED

DATA PROTECTION

Mr. Harry Cohen presented a Bill to make further provision for the retention, registration, use and disclosure of automatically-processed information relating to individuals; to regulate the provision of services in respect of such information; to provide for a Data Protection Commissioner and a Data Protection Tribunal; to replace the Data Protection Act 1984; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

War Pensioners (Equal Rights)

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to review the effect of differential treatment of war disablement and war widow pensioners by local authorities; to bring forward means for equal treatment; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would correct one small but important injustice in the way in which we treat war pensioners in this country. Over the years, it has been accepted by Governments that war pensioners, by which I mean war widows and war disablement pensioners—people who were in active service or those who were injured in the war when they were at home—have been treated by the state as the recipients of a justified form of compensation for their injury or bereavement. Answers on that point have been given over the years—I am grateful for the presence of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—by Ministers from the Department of Social Security which have made that clear.
Over the past decade, or a little longer, the cost of that compensation has been assessed and there has been a change in the way that the legislation has treated those people. First, dating back a little more than 20 years, local authorities in Britain were obliged—it goes back to the Housing Finance Act 1972—to disregard a proportion of war widow and war disablement pensions when assessing the entitlement of people in that category to housing benefit. In 1986, under the general review of social security legislation, there was no change to the discretionary position of local authorities, above the obligatory minimum amount of disregard. We then had an uprating in 1990 when the disregard went from £5 to £10.
By the arbitrary nature of which local authority area one lives in, it may be that if one is a war disablement pensioner or a war widow, one's entire pension is disregarded, part of one's pension is disregarded or the statutory 10 quid only is disregarded. That is not in any way a party-political point, because local authorities of all political colours and, indeed, of none fall into each of the categories. For example, if a war pensioner lives in Bristol, the City of London, Croydon, Leeds, Oxford, Pendle, Restormel or Wear Valley—I have chosen, at random, a group of local authorities across the country—not more than £10 would be disregarded, whereas if a war pensioner lives in one of the authorities next door, everything would be disregarded. So the anomaly has arisen that certain people, in exactly the same predicament, are treated differently by virtue simply of their residence. For a pensioner on a limited income, that difference may be significant and it is certainly unfair. The other relevant aspect is that the disregard now applies also to council tax benefit, so it applies to the help that pensioners receive with housing costs and with council tax bills.
All I want to argue is that there should be an urgent review and the Government should be asked to look at their policy again to see whether they ought to change it to give equity of treatment across the land.
The latest available figures—they were given to me by Ministers in the past month—are that more than 290 local authorities offered a full disregard. A further 28 offered a full disregard for disablement pensioners only and another five offered a full disregard for widows' pensions only. About 150 local authorities did not operate a full disregard system. As a result, in 150 areas such pensioners were treated less fairly. Certainly they were less well off.
The full cost of my Bill would be very small. The Southwark local authority offers a full disregard and it costs every adult about 8p a year to do that. We are talking only of pence. It is also obvious that the problem is becoming less expensive to solve, because there are fewer war disablement pensioners and war widows left. In 1978, there were about 382,000 in those categories, and in 1992 there were only just over a quarter of a million. The bill to the Treasury is becoming smaller.
In the past financial year, the Government paid out—the figures were supplied by the Government—about £225 million in war widows' pensions. On the last day of last month, there were nearly 50,000 war widows' pensions and about 250,000 war disablement pensions.
This is the 50th anniversary year of D-day and next year will be the 50th anniversary year of VE-day. I am raising an issue which pensioners' organisations and ex-service people's organisations, such as the Royal British Legion, have been on about for a very long time, as Ministers will know.
I wish to put down a marker today so that between now and the Budget in the autumn the Treasury can seriously consider whether the very small additional cost in revenue terms of righting a social injustice for increasingly few people is something that it can now meet as a reward to a specific category of our fellow citizens during this year of all years.
The reality is that some people in the category that I am talking about are very old. They served, or were alive, in both world wars. The rest were alive during the second world war although not the first. They all deserve equity and I hope that the House will allow the issue to be examined. Above all, I hope that the Government will allow the Bill to be considered and that they will bring forward a proposal to put money into the kitty so that every local authority can treat every war pensioner in the same way from next year onwards.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. David Shaw and Mrs. Diana Maddock.

WAR PENSIONERS (EQUAL RIGHTS)

Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to review the effect of differential treatment of war disablement and war widow pensioners by local authorities; to bring forward means for equal treatment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Privilege

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I wish to call attention to a report in The Sunday Times of 10 July that Members of the House had been offered, and had accepted, payment for the tabling of parliamentary questions; and to move,
That the matter of the complaint, together with the issues referred to in the statement by the Speaker on 12th July, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker announces that she has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

Mr. Brown: The motion is facilitated by the statement made yesterday by Madam Speaker. Its purpose is not to decide the matters of substance but to call the attention of the House to recent allegations and to refer them, and wider questions of principle, to the Committee of Privileges.
The specific allegation arises from a story in The Sunday Times of 10 July 1994. The allegation is:
Two leading Tories were willing to table official questions in the House of Commons in return for £1,000.
Madam Speaker, you reminded us yesterday of the section of the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which states:
A financial inducement to take a particular course of action in Parliament may constitute a bribe and thus be an offence against the law of Parliament."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 829.]
On page 119 of "Erskine May" we are told in a section headed "Corruption in the execution of a Member's duty":
The acceptance by any Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as such Member or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the House or any committee thereof, is a breach of privilege. Members of the Commons who have been found guilty of such an offence have been expelled or committed. It is also a contempt for a Member to enter into an agreement with another person to advocate the claims of such person in the House, for pecuniary reward.
The newspaper allegation is clearly that such a breach has been committed. The questions that were tabled relate to fictional matters—a drug called "Sigthin", and a company called "Githins". Both are anagrams of "Insight", and both are clearly bogus. It is therefore not open to anyone to claim a long-standing interest or alleged public interest in either the drug or the company. They are both clearly fictional.
It is also painfully clear that, if the drug and the company had been real entities, the only beneficiary of the parliamentary questions would have been the business men who procured the tabling of the questions. On the face of it, there is no public interest justification for tabling the questions.
The transcripts of conversations between Members of Parliament and the investigative reporters have been published. One Conservative Member is quoted as saying:
The main point is the question you have asked will be answered…one way or another, so we will just have to wait and see
The reporter then says:
I will send you the £1,000 in the post now, then.
The Conservative Member of Parliament then says:
That's very kind of you.
The reporter then says:

And thank you again for your help.
A separate conversation with another Conservative Member of Parliament deals with the ethical issues involved. The reporter asks:
Did you manage to have—you were going to talk to the Members' Interests people.
The Conservative Member of Parliament replies:
Yes, yes. I do not see any problem.
The reporter then asks:
There is no problem at all?
The Conservative Member says:
No. I would be quite happy to go ahead.
The reporter then says:
What do you want to do about paying you the £1,000?
The Conservative Member then says:
I don't really mind. Why don't you just send it to me? Do you want my home address?
On the face of it, the relationship between the money and the tabled questions seems overwhelming. In any event, it is my contention that it is strong enough to justify referral to the Privileges Committee.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am no defender of many of the exploits of the tabloid press or the serious press when the press intrudes into people's private lives, be they Members of Parliament or anyone else? However, for the life of me, in this case I cannot understand why there should be any criticism of The Sunday Times. If The Sunday Times had not done what it did, we would not be debating, or referring to the Privileges Committee, the whole question whether parliamentary questions are being tabled for money. If anything, The Sunday Times is to be congratulated.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has made his point. I will deal with precisely that point later, because my motion refers to that, just as it refers to the wider issues of principle—as, indeed, you did, Madam Speaker, yesterday. However, I would like to make my speech in my own way, because I want to persuade the whole House to support my motion.
The two hon. Members involved will want to tell their side of the story and should have the opportunity to do so. I understand that 20 Members of Parliament were approached—10 Labour and 10 Conservative. The 10 Labour Members and six Conservative Members who appear to have rejected the approach outright clearly have something of value to say.
Another Conservative Member allegedly offered to table a question about a fictional disease called "thising", which is another anagram of "Insight", and apparently wanted his cheque for £1,000 given to his favourite charity. That allegation should also be considered by the Committee of Privileges. It is the exchange of money specifically for the asking of parliamentary questions that I believe to be the breach of privilege. The use to which the money is put, no matter how noble or worth while, is wholly beside the point.

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will note that I requested exactly what Madam Speaker has given us today: the opportunity to have this matter considered by the most senior Committee of the House. I was deeply concerned about the activities of the individual who approached me. Before the hon. Gentleman says too much about me, he should remember that, if there are recordings, they will all be on tape.

Mr. Brown: I have already said that I believe that all the hon. Members mentioned in the allegations should, of course, have the opportunity to explain what they have done before the Committee of Privileges. That is the very reason why I am moving my motion.
I hope that the House will have noted that I am carefully avoiding naming individual Members. I have to set out the allegations to make the case for referral to the Committee of Privileges. I am trying to do so in a way that does not spark off a debate on the matters that I am asking the Committee to consider and not asking the House to determine this afternoon. It is a difficult line to tread, and I hope that the House understands that I am doing my best.
It is not possible to consider the ethics of taking a payment without looking at the ethics of offering payment—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). "Erskine May" states on page 128, under the section on improper influence:
Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct may be considered contempts. One of the methods by which such influence may be brought to bear is bribery and in 1695 the House of Commons resolved
to deal with this issue. When my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised that point, hon. Members laughed, thinking that 1695 was a long time ago. The resolution carried then is still the law of Parliament on bribery, and it is worth repeating to the House. The resolution states:
the offer of money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour and tends to the subversion of the English constitution".
That was before the Act of Union.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brown: If the intervention is about the Act of Union, I am not sure how grateful I shall be for it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has just quoted from the rule. Is not consultancy, in principle, above that? Is it not fair to argue, as have a number of my hon. Friends, that the entering into a consultancy agreement by a Member of Parliament in return for money, in the knowledge that that consultancy requires the promotion of an interest that benefits a Member, is in breach of the law?

Mr. Brown: That is the third issue that I want to raise. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington anticipates me.
I shall first deal with the issue of contempt—the offering of the bribe rather than the acceptance of it, if bribe it was. The Sunday Times story made it perfectly clear, at least to me, that Members of Parliament had been entrapped. It was also perfectly clear that Members of Parliament had been subjected to attempted entrapment.
The investigative journalists involved will say that they were acting within the ethics of their profession—[Interruption.] I am not always sure whether hon. Members are listening properly. What I said was that the investigative journalists involved would say that they were acting within the ethics of their profession—quite.
The Press Complaints Commission has an excellent code of practice—it would be excellent, if anyone took any

notice of it—and it has something to say on the topic. It has quite a long section on misrepresentation. Section 6(iii) states:
Subterfuge can be justified only in the public interest and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means.
In all these clauses the public interest includes:
(a) Detecting or exposing crime or serious misdemeanour.

Ms Clare Short: Given the nature of the rumours that we have heard about hon. Members tabling questions for money, it is clear that evidence of that would never become available, as those spending the money would not expose the action. Does my hon. Friend agree that The Sunday Times has done British democracy a favour through the investigation in exposing such gross behaviour, which must be scrutinised by the House of Commons?

Mr. Brown: I am trying to make the case for my motion in as neutral a way as I can, while still placing the facts in the public domain. It is clearly my duty to say what the issues are without trying to take sides in too partisan a way.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, which has now said that it will investigate his complaint? Would it be right for the PCC to investigate and pronounce judgment before the Committee of Privileges has had a chance to sit? It may not start sitting until October, and it may not produce anything until January or February. What would happen if the PCC came to a verdict before the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Brown: I was not aware that the complaint had been made. We are trying to establish an organisation with authority, and there is already an established body that has the authority to make investigations in its own different arena. I am certain that it is not for me to tell it how to proceed or to conduct its affairs. It is clearly open to the "Insight" team to mount a defence of their actions on the grounds of public interest. I share what I think is the general prejudice against entrapment.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because surely there would be a defence if the "Insight" team had been trying to reveal an activity that it was suspected was happening in this place. I have been a Member only seven years, but I have spoken to a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, and no one has ever heard of an instance of someone attempting to bribe a Member of Parliament to table a question in the House. Is not that the reason we are having this debate?

Mr. Brown: The reason that we are having this debate is that a number of hon. Members wrote to Madam Speaker following the publication of The Sunday Times article. You, Madam Speaker, made your statement to the House yesterday, which facilitated this motion. That is the reason we are having today's debate.
I am trying hard to introduce the motion in a neutral way, without denying the House the explanation of what lies behind it. I do not think that I am helped in that by interventions that invite me to go further than I should now into the matters of substance. I hope that, if the Committee of Privileges decides that it wishes to meet the "Insight" team, they will, if asked, willingly co-operate with its inquiry.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: If it is on the issue of co-operation.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is presenting his motion.
The "Insight" team have also said that they started their entrapment procedure because a business man had told them that he was in the business of giving Members of Parliament money to table questions. Will the "Insight" team be obliged to answer the questions that should be put to them: who is that business man, and what real evidence have the "Insight" team got?

Mr. Brown: That is exactly what I asked the House not to do in response to the last intervention. Clearly, that is a matter for the Committee of Privileges to consider. My motion seeks to get the issue—and, indeed, some wider issues—to the Committee of Privileges and to allow it to consider how best to proceed. Certainly it is not my place to tell it how to proceed.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: Irresistible. Of course I give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is a serious debate, and not a matter for joking. Will the remit of the Committee include those Members of the House who engage an excessive number of research assistants, many from America, who obtain information from the Library to enable them to get their D.Phil, doctorate or whatever? That is a nuisance to every Member of the House.

Mr. Brown: Frankly, I had not given that matter the consideration that I perhaps should have done. Again, I feel that I am being drawn into the details of the matter, when I want to deal at this stage with the broader questions of principle.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker, you spoke of the
urgent need to clarify the law of Parliament in that area.
You gave that as a specific reason for granting the motion today. You also said that the Committee would have
power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege which are concerned. I hope that it will use that power for the assistance of the House in a difficult area."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol.246, c. 829.]
It is a difficult area.
An excellent research paper prepared by the home affairs section of the House of Commons Library sets out the background to the topic, and explores the problems. There is a widespread fear among many who originally supported the Register of Members' Interests that it acts more as a licence than as a safeguard.

Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Committee of Privileges investigating the allegations against individual Members. However, Madam Speaker referred specifically to The Sunday Times. Will the inquiry that the hon. Gentleman envisages include a thorough inquiry into The Sunday Times, and into why it makes wild allegations every time there is a meeting overseas, so that, whenever my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes back to report, it is eclipsed? Will it also make inquiries into the allegation that The Sunday Times has said that it intends to

get rid of the Government by causing by-elections? Those are allegations that I have heard from The Sunday Times itself.

Mr. Brown: The motion invites the Committee of Privileges to examine the issues dealt with in The Sunday Times story—the cash-for-questions row. It invites it separately to consider the wider questions of principle that are involved in the relationship between Members of Parliament's public duty and their private business interests. That is what I seek to refer to the Committee of Privileges. I am closely paralleling the statement that you, Madam Speaker, made yesterday.
The hon. Gentleman asks that the Committee should investigate more widely. I am not sure that it will want to investigate quite so widely as he wants it to do. Nevertheless, I hope that it will examine the broad issues of principle, rather than merely the narrow issue that has given focus to the motion today.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public would find it utterly baffling, indeed incomprehensible, if we gave any impression that the House gave equal sense of seriousness to the activities of some journalists on The Sunday Times and to the alleged bribery of Members of Parliament? Those two issues are not of equal importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they are."] Conservative Members say that they are of equal importance. They are certainly not of equal importance to the people we represent. It is vital that the Committee of Privileges acknowledges that, not least because it would be ludicrous if a decision was made in the end which condemned the activities of The Sunday Times and condemned the activities of the hon. Members. They would never have been found out if it had not been for The Sunday Times.

Mr. Brown: I am trying to get the Committee up and moving. I certainly do not intend to tell it what its decision should be. It is difficult for me to respond to hypothetical conclusions of the Committee of Privileges when it has not even been set up yet. The purpose of the motion is to set it up and give it the widest possible remit, including the broader issues of principle.

Mr. Den Dover: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that he understood that 20 Members had been approached by The Sunday Times. Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence, since he tabled the motion, that 10 Labour Members were approached, or has he had no evidence at all?

Mr. Brown: Those matters are referred to in the story. Clearly it will be open to the Committee of Privileges to invite the "Insight" team to come before it and say whom it approached and what the responses were. The point that I was trying to make to the House was that 16 Members from both sides of the House rejected the approach outright, and that their reasons for so doing would clearly be of interest to the Committee of Privileges. That is the only point that I make in that matter.
I do not want to go through the recent well publicised causes for concern. It will suffice to say that there is widespread public disquiet about the relationship between the public duties of Members of Parliament and their private business interests. Our rules must ensure that there is no improper overlap between the two.
I know that, as the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), told the Committee which considered the matter a few years ago, there are profound problems of interpretation, enforcement and punishment. In my view, there is an even more profound problem in not tackling the issues. My motion enables the Committee of Privileges to try to do so.
An amendment has been tabled but not selected which suggests that, unless there are pressing reasons to the contrary, the Committee should follow its usual procedure in recent years and keep its proceedings in the public domain. I hope that the Committee will be able to do that, not merely because there is public interest in the issue but because, if Parliament looks at its own affairs and how we regulate the relationships between public and private interests, it is right that the public should see us doing it, and should understand the outcome.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I intervene simply and briefly to express the hope that the House will agree to the motion. As you said in your statement yesterday, which has given precedence to the motion today, Madam Speaker, the press report at the weekend which led to your receiving a number of complaints, including that from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), plainly raised serious and difficult issues.
I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman achieved the neutrality that was his ambition. Perhaps that is what provoked so many interventions. Certainly I do not think that it would be right for me as Leader of the House to follow down his path of commentary. I have no doubt that the proper course is for the House now to remit those complaints to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration and advice.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Madam Speaker, will the Leader of the House tell us how he intends to implement that part of your statement which asked for urgency? I am sure that he is aware that, on occasions in the past when matters have been referred to the Committee of Privileges, it has taken a very long time to come to a decision—perhaps for good reasons. Does he agree that, on this occasion, it is important that consideration is urgent, and that he should use all his powers as Leader of the House to set up the Committee and let it get on with its work as quickly as possible?

Mr. Newton: I was about to come to that. It is obviously for the Committee, when it is set up, to decide how to proceed. If the motion is agreed, the Government will, of course, undertake appropriate consultation with a view to tabling a motion to nominate the Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Madam Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Very few hon. Members have ever been called before a Privileges Committee, and I wish to take a few minutes to explain exactly what can happen. That is why I tabled my amendment today.
The sad fact is that if the Committee decides that it wants to hand out a public spanking—for example, to a recalcitrant trade union leader such as Arthur Scargill—it will hold all its hearings in public, and its proceedings will gain a great deal of publicity.
On the other hand, there is a tendency for a Privileges Committee to say that it is there to protect the House rather than the public. When that happens, there is a feedback to the culprit which says, "Grovel, apologise, purge your contempt and say you will never do it again." Proceedings will drag on for three or four months, and then the Committee will quietly produce a report which says that the hon. Member concerned apologised for his bad behaviour and that, as far as it is concerned, no further action should be taken.
A Committee will sit in private to reach that conclusion, it will hear virtually no evidence and its report will not be debated in the House. The matter goes into limbo. And that is exactly what happened to me.
I was the whistleblower in 1974, when I wrote a piece in Labour Weekly which alleged that there were Members for hire. That was at the time of Poulson and T. Dan Smith, and allegations such as those about Harold Wilson and the slagheaps and Tony Crosland, the Foreign Secretary, being given a coffee pot. My piece in Labour Weekly said that those allegations were nonsense, and that the number of Members out of 650 in the House who were susceptible to a proposition could be counted on one hand. Immediately the tabloids splashed across their front pages, "Name the guilty five." On the day when the T. Dan Smith trial ended—when what had been sub judice was no longer sub judice—I was the subject of a terrific amount of investigation.
The hon. Member for Peterborough at that time, Sir Harmar Nicholls, stood in the House and moved that the matter be referred to a Privileges Committee. That was between the two elections of 1974, when we had a majority of 22. I might add that things were done differently in those days, because I had to leave the Chamber immediately. With respect to you, Madam Speaker, I think it was the rule at that time that the Members accused had to leave the Chamber.

Madam Speaker: That is no longer the case.

Mr. Ashton: Exactly, but I had to leave.
The matter went upstairs to the Committee, and word came back that I should apologise and that no further action would be taken. I refused, and I put up a defiant defence. I was helped in that by my hon. and learned Friend Arthur Davidson, then the Member for Accrington and now a leading libel lawyer in Fleet street. We said that we had the facts in a file which was about a foot thick and there were immediate panic stations around the place.
Members of Parliament were, at that time, very badly paid. There were even advertisements in the whip on Friday saying that, if a Member wanted a £10 trip to Iceland to study the cod war, and he wanted to take his wife and two kids, it could be arranged. It was as blatant as that. A man came to me at the time and said that he wanted to make a commercial which said that the man who wound up


Big Ben wore a Timex watch. "All we would have to do," he said, "is film a man walking across the bridge and down through the door into Big Ben." He asked if I could arrange it, and said that there would be a good fee for doing that.
I wrote to the Leader of House and asked whether that could be arranged. He wrote back, and hit the ceiling. But that was part of a specific campaign to get a Register of Members' Interests, which Eddie Milne, Phillip Whitehead and I and a few others were engaged in. We constantly wrote articles saying that the matter should be brought out into the open and that there should be a register—and eventually a register was brought out.
My point is that the Privileges Committee decided at that time that it would sit in private and would not publish any evidence. I alleged at the time that Members were renting out the banqueting rooms and staging receptions, and that fees of £300 had been paid for scotch whisky receptions on Budget days.
I asked for the catering booking forms so that I could produce them to the Committee, but the Catering Committee said no. I said to the Committee of Privileges that I wanted those booking forms, but I was told that I could not have them. I did not object to the fact that I could not have them, but I did object that the fact that I had asked for them was not even reported in Hansard. None of it was reported in Hansard, and all the report said was that the Committee had sat on several occasions and had had deliberations.
I was asked whether I wanted to go before the Committee—my hon. and learned Friend Arthur Davidson said that I should not go because the lawyers and the Attorney-General would tear me to shreds—or whether I wanted to write and ask questions. I wrote to them; they asked me questions; and we wrote back. It went on for months, which was what everybody wanted.
As the October election was coming up in 1974, there was a strange mood around the House. People were saying to me that they knew that I was right, but that we could not fight an election in October while all this was going on. The hon. Member for Slagthorpe, North would come up and say that the hon. Member for Slagthorpe, South might be a bit dodgy, but that the allegation rubbed off on him. "It rubs off on us all," I was told, "so for God's sake drop it."
There was constant pressure on me to drop the matter.
I am afraid that I was not a popular person at that time, but the campaign ultimately resulted in the setting up of the Register of Members' Interests. That was not done until two years later when Poulson had gone bankrupt and had had to reveal the payments which he had made.
The Committee met again and recommended that three hon. Members—Reggie Maudling, Albert Roberts and John Cordle—should be suspended for six months. Michael Foot said—I do not think that Labour had a majority then—that there were two Members from one side and only one from the other. We could not have that, as we would be accused of rigging a majority for the Government of the day.
There was a tremendous kerfuffle. John Cordle did not wait for the House to decide on the matter, and handed in his resignation. The other two did wait and, I am sad to say, the House divided along political lines—perhaps because of the climate at that time. Reggie Maudling's suspension came up first, and the Conservatives voted solidly against the proposal. When it came to Albert Roberts, the Labour party voted solidly to keep him in as well.
We got the Register of Members' Interests set up, but because there was not a clear majority in the House we could not get the House's full agreement. That meant that the register was toothless in a way because, although it said that Members had to register their consultancies, it did not say that they had to register any offers or that the people who were making the offer had to register.
That is important because if the people making an offer had to register, nobody would make an offer. It is as simple as that. If it were against the law to make an offer to a Member—which it should be—nobody would make an offer. But we could not get that through the House at the time, and that very important part had to be left out.
What we are debating today has a different dimension, and a very important one. The question—with respect to my hon. Friends who were talking about The Sunday Times—is one of bugging. I do not object to newspaper investigations at all. I object to the growth in the use of tape recorders which we have seen in the past two years. I sat on the Select Committee on National Heritage which looked at the matter.
Within the past 18 months, a tape recorder has been placed under a Cabinet Minister's bed, the results of which were then splashed in the papers. In another example an offer of £2,000 was made by a prominent politician at a railway station, and one of the people involved in the incident was wearing a mike. We now have an instance where a conversation has been taped and where telephones have been bugged. The royal family's telephone conversations have been bugged, and then printed. I hope that the Committee will look at the growth of technology which did not exist 20 years ago when the House was not televised and was not even on the radio.

Mr. Roger Gale: I concur with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He has been in the Chamber and may not be aware that this afternoon the editor in charge of The Sunday Times Insight team—he is in the Gallery this afternoon and is hearing what I am saying—admitted on the record that his team had been researching this story and trying to stand it up since January. They had investigated a number of Members, and had been unable to pin the story on any particular Member at any time, and they had to resort to subterfuge to set up the story.

Mr. Ashton: I do not want to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said at the beginning of the debate, we should not produce evidence which might be prejudicial to any inquiry. We are talking about the general merits of the matter.
The Committee must certainly take a look at electronic surveillance. That problem has been compared with the banning of journalists from the Terrace because of allegations that they were harassing Members. A long tradition of trust with the journalists' lobby has been built up, but we can no longer talk to journalists without fearing that they may have microphones or tape recorders in their pockets. We can no longer use the telephone without wondering whether we are speaking on lobby terms or whether we are being recorded. The Committee must look into that too, because all this technology is a new dimension of privilege, and the House has never before examined the matter.
I tabled my amendment just to make sure that members of the Committee know that everything said in it must be subject to full public scrutiny—perhaps not all the deliberations, but certainly all the evidence given to the Committee.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that there be a public record? If there is not, for the next few months there will be nothing but speculation in the newspapers to the effect that the Privileges Committee has heard this or that, or recommended this or that, or probed this or that. We need an open record of what goes on, so that we can all judge on the basis of fact, not hearsay.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is of course right. I believe that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made a mistake by going to the Press Complaints Commission. That will only result in a verdict being given by a body before this House gives its verdict, thereby pre-empting it.
I hope that the Committee will adhere to my hon. Friend's suggestion and insist that every scrap of evidence be published.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: May I draw to the attention of the House the fact that a number of hon. Members want to speak in this debate? I ask them to exercise voluntary restraint in respect of the length of their speeches. Secondly, I draw their attention to the fact that the motion is a very narrow one, and I hope that they will read it before speaking.

Sir John Gorst: Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday I made a complaint to you about bribery and the surreptitious use of bugging devices within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I begin by setting out the facts on which that complaint was based.
On Wednesday 29 June a Mr. Jonathan Calvert came to see me at the House of Commons by appointment. Several days earlier he had left telephone messages, saying that he wished to discuss a consultancy matter with John Gorst and Associates Ltd., a consultancy that I formed six years before I was elected to this House. It is also registered as a business and public relations consultancy in the Register of Members' Interests.
I took Mr. Calvert, a young man in his late twenties or early thirties, to a bench seat off the Central Lobby, and he immediately explained that he had been left some money which he wished to invest in a drugs company that was unable to establish the facts about an uncommon disease. He spelt it out as an unpronounceable illness called "thising aphonitus infeston". Before deciding whether to proceed with an investment, Mr. Calvert explained that he needed information from the Department of Health about the incidence of this disease. He asked whether I would table a parliamentary question for which he was prepared to pay £1,000. He did not require any regular consultancy; it was just that one-off question to which he sought an answer.
I explained to him that it was not proper for a Member of Parliament to accept money for tabling questions. He

seemed to think that that was either pedantic or unhelpful, so I explained, as The Sunday Times reported, that although it might not be illegal it was certainly not very nice if Members of Parliament asked questions in return for money.
I did not comment, although the thought crossed my mind, that his request was more than somewhat improper. I am used to certain types of business people, unfamiliar with the ways of Parliament, thinking that money can buy whatever they want. So I was inclined to put his request down to ignorance or naivety.
I therefore confined myself to suggesting that if Mr. Calvert set out on paper what he wanted to know and sent it to me I would consider tabling the question for nothing. I could see no objection at that time to asking a question about the incidence of an unusual disease. As Mr. Calvert had ostensibly come to see me about the possibility of my company undertaking consultancy work, I concluded the 10 or 15-minute meeting by saying that, if in the future he felt the need for consultancy, I would be perfectly willing to discuss some sort of arrangement.
I hope that the House will take the view, irrespective of Members' views on the desirability or otherwise of Members having outside interests, that this was a perfectly correct response to both the letter and the spirit of our regulations. Certainly it was a dubious approach, and I hope that I responded correctly.
After Mr. Calvert's departure I consulted a medical dictionary in the Library. There was no reference to the so-called disease he had mentioned. Meanwhile I also decided that there was something that did not quite ring true about Mr. Calvert. At the same time, I was inclined to suspect that he was a slightly cranky individual of a type not unfamiliar to Members of Parliament from their surgeries. Indeed, on checking his telephone number, which was in the Richmond area, I could not understand why he had not consulted his own Member of Parliament. Even though it appeared that his Member was a Minister, there was no good reason why the information that Mr. Calvert sought could not have been obtained by a Minister through normal correspondence.
Thereafter I gave no further thought to Mr. Calvert—or rather, not until Saturday 9 July—10 days later—when I returned a call from The Sunday Times, in the course of which I was informed that the paper intended publishing a report to the effect that two Members of Parliament had accepted money in return for tabling parliamentary questions. It was also revealed to me that the Mr. Calvert who had come to see me in the House of Commons was in fact a member of the paper's staff.
I was indignant at this subterfuge, but more to the point, I recognised that a deliberate, seemingly criminal attempt had been made to bribe me, and that there had been nothing naive or unknowing about the proposition put to me by Mr. Jonathan Calvert.
When, later that evening, I obtained an early edition of The Sunday Times, I also took exception to what I took to be a libellous innuendo. I rang the paper and remonstrated with the editor of the column. During our conversation he revealed to me that he had a transcript of what I had said, thereby making it perfectly clear that Mr. Calvert had been using a concealed recording device throughout our conversation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has referred to bribery. What is the difference between


payment for a one-off service under the heading of consultancy and payment for a consultancy that lasts for a period?

Sir John Gorst: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am trying to deploy a case. I do not wish to dodge the question, but I hope that he will understand from my subsequent remarks that I am discussing the two points in this motion about which I have personal knowledge.
Hon. Members will be well aware that "Erskine May" states on page 128, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has already said:
Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct may be considered contempts.
I contend that offering money for tabling a question constitutes such a contempt. Before I reach that point, I hope that the House will allow me to finish what was saying about Mr. Calvert.
It was only because I believed that I was being offered money out of ignorance or naivety rather than duplicity that I did not report the conversation I have outlined sooner. I have explained to the House why I now think differently.
I wish to go further, however, and argue that those who from the start seek in the precincts of the House to cause a Member to commit a contempt by accepting bribes, are themselves guilty of committing a contempt and should be dealt with accordingly. Their motives are irrelevant. They should operate within the laws of Parliament and not above them. Should they seek to justify their conduct on the grounds of public interest, I would submit that they are abusing and usurping powers that properly belong either to Madam Speaker or to the House.

Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Gorst: No. I shall not give way as I realise that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Who are these members of the fourth estate anyway? Who are these so-called guardians of the public interest who are arrogating to themselves exceptional powers and rights: the right to break the law; the right to offer felonious bribes; the right to invade the precincts and privileges of the mother of Parliaments? Such contemptuous arrogance has not been seen since the days of the robber barons.
The power of the press has grown, is growing and needs to be diminished. As a voice for the grievances of the nation it is essential, invaluable and must not be fettered, but as a power above the law, without accountability, it has no rights, no role and no function in our parliamentary democracy.
There are those who plead eloquently against the erosion of the sovereignty of Parliament in Europe. What price that sovereignty if it is to be subservient to the Murdoch empire, an empire in the ascendant that has a higher budget than the British Empire ever had in its decline? Against such mighty and overweening assertiveness, what is the value of the ancient, jealously guarded privileges accorded to the elected representatives of the people? What is their value if they are to be subordinated to the news editor of The Sunday Times, who places his concept of the public interest as superior to that of the constitution?
Finally, I turn to the use of clandestine bugging devices. Although there is no explicit reference to their use in the Palace of Westminster, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to page 115 of "Erskine May":
Generally speaking, any act…which…impedes either House in the performance of its functions, or which…has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.".
In this case, such recording devices were used without my knowledge within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
The use of bugging devices in any circumstances in the Palace of Westminster could impede uninhibited discussion between Members and Ministers, constituents, or accredited members of the lobby, or between Government and Opposition parties.
As that is a practice not permitted to such authorities as the police, the security forces or indeed any official acting under the authority of you, Madam Speaker, it would be wrong in my view to permit it to journalists. Moreover, the use of recording devices in such circumstances places improper influence and pressure on Members of the House and therefore ought to be treated as a serious contempt.
Bribery and bugging by any section of the media are a gross abuse of Parliament. To censure and outlaw it inside the privileged precincts of the House is not an infringement of the liberty of the press. Those practices are a violation of freedom, not a protection of it.
Corrupt means to expose corruption are a corruption in themselves. We do not sanction corrupt methods in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland, nor should we tolerate them in this place. Deception and trickery are the tools of a totalitarian state; they have no place in this country.
Across the span of our public life we have a variety of properly constituted inspectorates. Are we now to tolerate a secret self-appointed journalistic police answerable only to the commercial imperatives of the transatlantic Rupert Murdoch?
If something is to be done—and I support the motion wholeheartedly—if censure or penalties are to be imposed, I hope that the Committee of Privileges will ensure that The Sunday Times is denied access to any privileged facilities of the Palace of Westminster and that it will not be allowed to return until it has purged its contempt and given assurances that there will be no repetition of this disreputable conduct.

Mr. Tony Benn: I support the motion before the House and, as a former member of the Committee of Privileges, I do not wish to comment on the individual cases. The matter of the next Committee will be for the House to determine. However, it is sensible to set the framework against which these issues have come into the public domain.
Without regard to the individual details that have been given, if people observing Parliament, which is widely reported in the press and on television, were to be persuaded that the transactions that we present to them as being a conflict of ideas and interests were really just a cover for financial arrangements which were concealed from them, their confidence in the House would rightly disappear.
I have long thought—and I hinted at it in the debate when you were elected to the Chair, Madam Speaker—that the threats to democracy in Britain come from quite


surprising places, not least from those who seek to replace our work by moving it to other places at Millbank and elsewhere.
It is important that this House, which has a very long history—I think it is 700 years next year since the model Parliament was called—should recognise that in a sense the whole development of Parliament has been a struggle by the common people to prevent the country from being run by rich people.
It was the King who conquered—William the Conqueror came to Westminster abbey on Christmas day 1066—and his power was power by conquest. He owned the country, so he ran it. Similarly, when the barons went to Runnymede—an activity sometimes misunderstood as having played a significant part in the development of democracy—the feudal landlords told the King that they were not prepared to have him run the country because they were landlords and they owned the land. The serfs who suffered under the landlords never really benefited from Magna Carta.
I shall not take the House through any more history—we all take school children round this place—but it is worth remembering that in 1832, which is not so very long ago, only 2 per cent. of the population had the vote and they were all rich white men. The Chartists and the suffragettes wanted the vote. Why was that? It was because they wanted to use the ballot box to countervail the power of money.
That is what the whole parliamentary story is about. People did not want the vote because they had done an A-level in government; they wanted it in order to buy collectively what they could not afford individually. That is what the history of the labour movement means. People said, "Many of us cannot afford houses or proper education, health care or pensions. We will band together and campaign for the vote. We will then campaign for candidates who, when elected, will be able to use the power of Parliament to countervail the power of money." If we allow that idea to be put in question by giving the impression that money—by means of subterfuge—still runs the proceedings of the House of Commons, we destroy the whole thing at a stroke.
Then there is the question of privilege. There are two views of privilege, one of which is that its purpose is to protect Members of Parliament from being criticised outside. I have never taken that view. Clearly, if a Member of Parliament receives a death threat—"If you vote for such and such a Bill, we will kill you"—that is a breach of privilege. Why is that? It is because it prevents that Member of Parliament from performing the function for which he or she was elected. Privilege is there to protect the electors, so that the Parliament that they have elected can perform the functions for which they elected it.
The Committee of Privileges recently dealt with an interesting case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). It concerned an employee of Birmingham city council. When that council promoted a Bill to allow a road race in Birmingham, that employee—in his personal capacity—petitioned against it. The council then tried to move him from his job as a punishment for petitioning against his employer.
I am proud to have played some part in what followed. The Committee of Privileges ruled that Birmingham city

council was guilty of a breach of privilege by threatening a citizen, thus preventing him from coming to Parliament. I hope that when the Committee meets on this occasion it will bear in mind that view of privilege—that it is there to protect those who elect us so that Parliament can work for them against those who will always seek to get their results by means of money.
Some Members of Parliament are already governed by very strict rules. I take it that the Leader of the House and other Front Benchers are governed by the same rules that governed me when I was a Secretary of State. They are contained in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", a copy of which I have kept. The document will vary from Government to Government, but it is sent to every Minister by the Prime Minister of the day. My copy is copy No. 21, dated 23 April 1976; Jim Callaghan, who was then Prime Minister, sent the memorandum to all of us. I will quote two of the rules.
The first of those rules states:
It is a well-established and recognised rule that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him under an obligation.
The second passage, which is equally short, states:
It is a principle of public life that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.
My opinion—which I submitted, unsuccessfully, to the Select Committee on Members' Interests—is that every Member of Parliament should be covered by those rules. What is so special about Ministers that they are public servants? Are we not public servants? Do we not table questions? I table many questions for business men who come to me and say, "I have an invention" or "I have an export problem", but I would not dream of either expecting or receiving money for doing that, either in a personal capacity or by setting myself up as a consultant. I do not put myself in any position above that, but Members of Parliament are elected to act as consultants to the British people: that is what we are here for.
Why do people write to Members of Parliament and visit their surgeries? It is because they want our advice: they want to consult us about how their problems might be resolved. That argument, I think, is both powerful and easy to advance, because the rules are already there for Ministers. I presume that the current wording is very similar to what I read out, although it may vary slightly—indeed, the present Government published the rules.
When I put the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, it would not allow the document to be published. It was frightened, because the document was marked "confidential". Ministers were governed by rules that were secret, while the rest of us were not.
We often boast that we are a high court of Parliament. If that is so, Members taking the oath should swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Rather than being an oath of allegiance to the Crown—I shall not go into that now—the oath that we take in the House should have some bearing on the duties that we perform. I drafted such an oath and submitted a Bill that dealt with it. It read:
I…Solemnly declare and affirm
That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the peoples of the United Kingdom, according to their respective laws and customs"—
that is from the coronation oath—
preserving inviolably their civil liberties and democratic rights…through their elected representatives in the House of


Commons, and will faithfully and truly declare my mind and opinion on all matters that come before me without fear or favour.
That is from the Privy Councillor's oath, which the Lord President has declined to publish. Happily, I did it for him some time ago.
If Parliament is to be credible, people must know that when we come here we are public servants. No one would argue that we do not bring our experience to the House or that we may not do other things in parallel—some Members of Parliament write, for instance—but that is quite different from being paid to perform an aspect of one's parliamentary duties.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I am trying to make a serious point, but I will give way.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. His speech is interesting, but I seem to recall his saying on the radio that he had failed to persuade members of his own party of various things that he thought were right, and then saying that he had best explain or put forward what he disagreed with. If the point of view in the second part of his speech includes his diary form, think that many people will find points to criticise; the first part was rather better.

Mr. Benn: I will conclude by putting to the House some proposals that I believe the Committee should consider. First, I propose that every Member of Parliament should be required to list the sources, though not the amounts, of all his or her financial interests. Secondly, the procedure for Ministers should apply to all of us. Thirdly, certain financial interests should be held to disqualify a person from serving in the House of Commons. As you know, Madam Speaker, an office of profit under the Crown disqualifies: it is not possible to serve the Executive and be a member of the legislature. That is an old principle and is the reason why Members of Parliament wishing to retire apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. But are there not other offices which should disqualify? I think that at one stage people working for contractors to Government Departments were included. If people are engaged in making money as a result of being in Parliament, is that not a disqualifying office? I believe that the rules, whatever they are, should be embodied in statute and not just in the "old boy" regulations of the House.
I also believe that every candidate should publish his or her interests with the nominations papers, and that all organisations making payments of any kind to any Member of Parliament should be required to make a declaration to that effect in a separate register. If an organisation pays a Member of Parliament, it should be under a statutory responsibility to declare, "We paid that Member for that purpose." All lobbyists should declare the names of all persons whom they employ for that purpose, and the list should be published. When a Member declares an interest when speaking or voting—as he should—that interest should be printed in Hansard, having been picked up from the Register. The oath should oblige us to do all those things.
No doubt the Committee of Privileges will examine the question of the Members concerned and what happened in the current instance in detail, some of which has been touched on today. However, I urge the House not to allow

this opportunity to deal with the wider question to pass. If people at home not only hear what is happening in the House but wonder whether the newspapers pay for things to be done which they subsequently report independently, as part of the democratic process, the House will do itself a disservice and will richly merit criticism.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. First, however, I should like to thank you personally, Madam Speaker, for responding to my letter and to those of many others giving us an opportunity to have this debate. As a result, I hope that the Privileges Committee will be able to look into the matter.
I want to make it clear to Opposition Members that I have no objection to the Privileges Committee sitting in public or to everything being recorded. In fact, I look forward to the tape recordings of my conversations being heard in full. I welcome that. I believe that they would have the same effect as the Richard Nixon tapes had on Richard Nixon and on the individual who obtained those recordings. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. There are some rather loud conversations taking place. I am sure that we all want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Walker: From time to time The Sunday Times gives us titbits of news which it thinks will titillate the interest of the public at large and help the newspaper's circulation. I am concerned that from now on the newspapers should not use edited versions of recordings in order to increase their circulation. I have made my view clear: I am happy to have the tapes involving me heard and printed in full in the Committee report. I welcome the fact that the Privileges Committee has the powers that it has and I trust that it will use them.
The Sunday Times claims that the methods used were justified and in the public interest. Consequently, I believe that it could not object if I were to tell the House the name and address of the business man, the potential investor and job creator, who told me that he had given up being a haulage contractor because he had come into a substantial inheritance which he wished to invest in a company manufacturing a new drug that would be a cure for a particular type of serious throat problem. The House will recollect that last year I was off ill for quite some time with just such a health problem. Was I not the right chap to approach with that sort of instant cure? I should certainly have thought so. The idea of a cure together with the prospect of jobs was what made me interested in the gentleman—or rather the agent provocateur, con man, liar and cheat—who tried to get me to accept a cheque, which I refused, and who recorded all our conversations on the telephone and all the conversations held in my room in the House without my knowledge.
If Jonathan Calvert of 35 Cambridge Cottages, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AY is listening, I hope that he will recollect that I also have his telephone number—081 940 2534—on which I have spoken to his wife. I obtained the clear impression that he was genuine.
I ask hon. Members to think carefully. The right to ask questions and to have questions answered is the


cornerstone of our unwritten constitution. Anyone tampering with that for whatever motive—or ulterior motive—should be dealt with severely by Parliament.
I am prepared—I imagine that I have no choice—to appear before the Committee of Privileges. If I have erred, as I often do—I live in a house full of women who constantly remind me of that—the Committee will quite properly point out my erring ways. If The Sunday Times has erred—I believe that it has erred in a ghastly way—the Committee should treat it properly as well.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the House will vote for the motion, and that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Committee is set up speedily, which I know he will want to do. I am sure that that is the mood of the House.
At this stage, I do not intend to dwell on the behaviour of the press. It is right that that should be investigated and, like the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), I am certainly not convinced that the press complaints procedure is an effective guardian of the public interest. It may be that the behaviour of the press in this context needs to come back to us in the House.
I hope that your statement, Madam Speaker, was so clear that the Committee of Privileges will be under no misapprehension. I believe that both halves of the motion should be followed comprehensively. The Committee should look not only into the specific matter of the complaints relating to two colleagues, but consider all the matters that flow from that and are related to it. That means that three separate matters need to be examined by the Committee.
The first is that there may well be contempt of Parliament by colleagues, because one of the allegations clearly implies that hon. Members might be in contempt. I should add that we are all and always prospectively at risk of that, and I do not want to suggest that at different times any of us might not be. It is clear from the wording on page 119 of "Erskine May" that
The acceptance by any Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as such Member or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted
is a breach of privilege and puts the Member in contempt.
Two types of effort are made to influence us here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) gave me a specific example of a type of effort made by many. When he ceased to be the leader of our party, he was approached by a consultancy firm offering him a five-figure sum for one year simply to book rooms for entertaining and to look after clients of a consultancy. That is entirely inappropriate. My right hon. Friend declined that offer clearly, having, in his own words, been "astounded" that it had been made. That is one level of activity which involves using the building and facilitating contacts.
Another level of activity is attempting to influence the business in the Chamber—speaking, voting and tabling motions and questions. The matters raised in the motion and in The Sunday Times relate to that much more central matter of the business of Parliament. Attempts were made to influence the business of Parliament, with money as the reward.
Those of us who have been taught the criminal law are taught about the legal difference between attempting to do something which can actually be done, such as stealing something, or attempting to do something illegal that one cannot do, for example because there is nothing to steal. I hope that the Committee will not find on a technicality that, because there was no real company and because people were pretending something, there was not an offence. I hope that the Committee will exclude that, because the issue is as serious as if it were a real company and a real individual seeking to influence us in some way.
Secondly, there may be contempt—on the face of it, it looks as if there is—by those who attempted to bribe 20 hon. Members. I do not know whether other people have done that before, but your statement, Madam Speaker, made it clear that you wanted the wide rather than the narrow set of issues to be considered.
It is also clear that the Committee can find such action to be in breach of privilege, and that it can deal with it. On both of those matters, you rightly made the point yesterday, Madam Speaker, that the law of the land was not clear. There is ambiguity as to whether, in ordinary criminal law, such action could also land anyone before the courts—when would contempt in this place also be illegal outside? That matter should be sorted out.
We must know whether any person who approached our 20 colleagues was guilty of a criminal offence, and whether hon. Members who respond to such an approach and accept and pocket money are also guilty of a criminal offence. The matter should be made clear, and the public should know what the position is. If the law needs to be amended, it should be. The Committee should deal with the matter.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) alluded to the third issue, which is a subsidiary one but linked to the main issues, as your statement, Madam Speaker, made clear. It relates to whether the Register of Members' Interests is sufficient to achieve the purposes for which it was intended.

Mr. Terry Lewis: It is.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) makes the point from a sedentary position—it is not, and there are several reasons for that.
First, hon. Members do not have to declare an interest until a month afterwards. Secondly, the Register, although it is published annually, updated periodically in a loose form and can be inspected, is by definition not up to date in a public form. The relevance of an interest may be past by the time it is in the public domain. It may be no good, for example, for people to discover only a year afterwards that an hon. Member was given money for an air ticket to North Korea. The relevance may be when the payment was made, not later.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, currently we do not have to declare the value of the interest. The register is almost useless unless the actual amount of money that passes hands appears in it. There is all the difference in the world between being paid tuppence and being paid £1 million to do something. The amounts that people receive for their non-parliamentary duties should be explicitly included in the register for everyone to see. [Interruption.] The register should include everyone, and all the money that hon. Members receive other than as a result of their parliamentary duties.
Another issue may also be debated later tonight—an appropriate amendment has been tabled, although I do not know yet whether it has been accepted. I have argued my case on the issue, and I have previously forced votes on it. In my view, all the money that we receive from elsewhere should be deducted from what we earn as a Member of Parliament. [Interruption.] I should add that that view is not shared by every one of my parliamentary colleagues, let alone other hon. Members. A significant number of people share my view, and it has been placed on the record before. Many hon. Members resist such a view. It would embarrass them publicly if their constituents knew how much money they earn as a result of being elected to this place which they would not have earned if they had not been elected.
In any event, however, it cannot be right that the taxpayer foots the bill for answers to questions from which hon. Members can gain private financial reward, because, by this means, the taxpayer is lining the pockets of hon. Members who accept money.
When hon. Members go to the Table Office and table an early-day motion, they are required to say whether they have a relevant interest to declare. There is no reason why there should not be the same requirement when we table a question. We should declare an interest. If we are in breach, at least we have been alerted, and have failed to declare the interest knowingly.
It may be argued that it is also nonsense for the taxpayer to pay, through the licence fee, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which then pays hon. Members to appear on television. We are elected to represent different views. [Interruption.] It does on certain occasions. Television and radio payments should also be in the public domain.
When we visit our constituents, a common view is that Members of Parliament are here for their own advancement and interest. A common view is that we are here to make a profit for ourselves. A common view is that we do financially very well and that we have our snouts in the trough.
If we are to enhance democracy, the Committee should consider that issue as widely as possible; otherwise, we will be regarded as open to the same form of corruption as some other democracies around the world. Your statement, Madam Speaker, made it clear that you would find that unacceptable. I hope that the Committee will be as tough as possible, to ensure that the system is clearly organised to be protection against any risk of corruption of this sort again.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and others raised some interesting points about the Press Complaints Commission, and, in particular, my complaint to it, and I intend to consider what they have said.
Madam Speaker, I am thoroughly relieved that you have proposed the setting up of the Committee of Privileges. It means that I will have my peers from this House, and not the press, sitting in judgment over me. I too, therefore, support the motion.
I very much regret what I hope the House will accept was a lack of judgment on my part rather than anything worse, and I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and the House that it is in part actions by me which have made it necessary for you to initiate the debate.
I feel that the House will agree that now is not the time to go through in detail the sequence of events that took place. I will, of course, be talking to the Committee. But as the House, I think, knows, I was approached by a Mr. Jonathan Calvert—that name again. He claimed to be a business man, but he turned out later to be a Sunday Times journalist.
I recognise that I was unwise to have even considered doing what he asked me to do. Consultancy was mentioned. He told me that he had been advised by a former constituent of mine that I was always prepared to help small business men. He talked about his Yorkshire connections, but I accept that I made an error of judgment in agreeing to table a question and in agreeing initially to accept a fee.
I can tell the House that soon after I started to reflect on what I had agreed. I came to my own conclusion that I could not justify accepting a fee, and I decided that I would not accept the payment. This was before the Department of Social Security had told me that it did not know anything about the fictitious company and before I knew that I was the victim of an elaborate Sunday Times scam.
I returned to my Yorkshire home last Thursday. The cheque arrived on Friday morning. I sent the cheque back by return of post on that Friday.
Madam Speaker, I am grateful for your decision to refer the behaviour of The Sunday Times to the Committee of Privileges. It does seem to me to be somewhat dubious, to say the least, that a journalist from a national newspaper should masquerade as a business man and tell a Member of Parliament a tissue of lies to manufacture a story.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Riddick: No, I am not going to give way.
Beyond the challenge to my own integrity, which I deeply regret, the thing that has mortified me the most is that my judgment may have undermined the general standing of Members of Parliament, and even perhaps have damaged the reputation of this Parliament. I regard it as an enormous honour and privilege to serve in the House of Commons and to be able to help my constituents as their Member of Parliament. I am sure that that is the view of most—if not all—hon. Members.
I apologise for the trouble that I have created for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, for whom I have so enjoyed working, and for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the very time when he was fighting for Britain's interests in Naples. But most of all—[Interruption.]

Sir John Gorst: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is virtually making an apology to the House. On such occasions, the House usually hears hon. Members in silence and toleration. I wonder whether you could encourage such conduct on this occasion.

Madam Speaker: When any hon. Member is speaking, irrespective of what he is saying, he should be heard with courtesy and in silence. I hope that that will be so throughout this debate.

Mr. Riddick: Most of all, for undermining—to whatever degree—the standing of the House, I wish to apologise to you, Madam Speaker and to every hon.


Member. I look forward to giving evidence to the Select Committee on Privileges, in which I have complete faith and confidence.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I want to make a short contribution on a narrow point but to take a little further the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
To the best of my knowledge, the motion provides an opportunity, which the House should seize, for us to attend in detail for the first time in some 15 years to the immunities granted to Members of Parliament. They are immunities—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have just asked for order for one hon. Member, and other hon. Members are equally entitled to it. Will those who are having meetings do so outside the Chamber? May I have the doors closed? Will hon. Members either come in or leave? I do not want any more meetings in the Chamber. An hon. Member is on his feet and I want to hear him.

Mr. Rooker: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This debate provides the House with an opportunity that should be grasped. Many hon. Members in the Chamber today—perhaps the majority—were probably elected after 1979, after some turbulent Sessions during which one hon. Member resigned and three were called to book, after the Select Committee that investigated the conduct of Members reported and after various other events in the late 1970s which, of course, brought into being the Register of Members' Interests.
In many ways, we have been here before. When we examined the immunity of Members of Parliament in the past, we were found wanting—we cannot fail this time. Although we have to ask the Privileges Committee to examine the immunities from the law of the land which are granted to Members of Parliament and which set us apart from our fellow citizens, it is not generally appreciated that our immunities go beyond free speech.
I often hear it said on the radio in the morning that Members of Parliament in Italy or Russia are voting to grant or remove immunity from prosecution for some malfeasance, and I think that at least that does not happen here. However, the fact is that we have certain immunities that go beyond that of free speech. Free speech is the crucial immunity; it is very narrow but sets us apart from our constituents. It is a specific immunity in respect of our duties in the House. It therefore elevates our duties in this House above everything else and separates us from our fellow citizens. That is where we should draw the line.
We hear about "the law of Parliament" or "the High Court of Parliament"—indeed, we heard such language in your statement yesterday, Madam Speaker—but I submit that there is no such thing. I think that we should all be equal before the common and criminal law. It is a matter that we, as a House, have been asked to deal with in the past but which the House has refused to address. I remind the House why that was so.
In respect of our parliamentary duties and our actions in Parliament, we, as Members of Parliament, have an immunity in the criminal law from charges of corruption,

bribery and attempted bribery. Outside we are equal; inside we are not. I do not think that that should be the case. I want the Select Committee to widen its remit, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has suggested.
We govern ourselves essentially by self-regulation, but we have to ask ourselves whether the Committee of Privileges and the Register of Members' Interests are good enough. Do our constituents believe that we all receive equal treatment? The Register of Members' Interests is of fairly recent origin—it did not exist when I was elected just over 20 years ago. To some extent, it has been strengthened, but is it good enough? It has already been called into question today. I wonder whether the ultimate sanction of an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges is sufficient but, fortunately, we do not have to reinvent the wheel.
I should like the Committee of Privileges to revisit the report of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life, which has never been debated in the House. It was published in July 1976 after an inquiry that commenced in December 1974. It has never been the subject of debate. I asked my colleagues in the Labour Government and I have asked this Government by means of parliamentary questions in the early 1980s to allow the House to debate the report.
I do not deny that many of the report's recommendations, in so far as they affect our fellow citizens in business and local government, have been implemented over the years, but some of its recommendations relating to this place have not been dealt with. The report was published under the guidance of the commission's chairman, Lord Salmon, in July 1976, 18 years ago. It is Cmnd. 6524. Let us consider dates for a moment. The Register of Members' Interests was set up by resolution in June 1975; and the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life was sitting at that time and taking evidence from various people.
I draw the House's attention to the report's conclusions. Chapter 17 is entitled "The law affecting Members of Parliament" and runs to only 12 paragraphs. The conclusions and recommendations are worth putting on record. The final paragraph-311-states:
Membership of Parliament is a great honour and carries with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards of probity, and this duty has almost invariably been strictly observed. Nevertheless in view of our report as a whole, and especially in the light of the points set out in the foregoing paragraph, we recommend that Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of the criminal law. Our recommendation is limited to this single point, and we do not raise any questions about other aspects of Parliamentary privilege and related matters.
That recommendation has never been debated by the House or by any Select Committee. Part of the background to that recommendation is the fact that the commission felt strongly that Parliament is not a public body for the purposes of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889; Members of Parliament are not agents for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906; and, in fact, membership of this House is not a public office for the purposes of the common law. Of course Ministers, in their capacity as Ministers, are public officials, so they are separate. But our status is unique. In this country we are immune; we are the prosecutors, the jury and the judge. That is wrong. Now the Privileges Committee has the opportunity to address that issue. I make no comment


whatever on the merits of the arguments. I know that. some hon. Members have done so, but I think that they have been unwise, bearing in mind the fact that the Select Committee on Privileges is not yet constituted.
I finish by reminding the House that during my exchanges with the Government concerning the lack of serious attention to the report, I once asked the Home Secretary
what proposal he has in mind to improve the standards of conduct in public life.
The answer that I received was:
To set a good example to others."—[Official Report, 15 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 343.]
That was in the days when we had a gent as Home Secretary; he is now Lord Whitelaw. His answer was not a Willieism; it was actually true. We are here to set a good example to others.
The lack of attention that the House has given over the years to the royal commission report as it affects our vested interests means that we have failed in our duty to our constituents. I look upon the motion as an opportunity for us to make amends for our negligence in the 18 years since the report was published.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall make two brief points. First, I had a telephone call last week; I believe that it was from a Mr. Calvert, but unfortunately I threw away the pink slip. I gave the name to my secretary and said, "I have never heard of this guy, and I have never heard of the company. Could you please ring him?" That was the end of it.
I do not want to comment on the position of my two hon. Friends. One of them has explained his position, and the matter will go to the Committee. However, one or two aspects involving The Sunday Times need examining. In connection with entrapment and other such ensnaring schemes, the press code mentions suspicion of a misdemeanour, and the general public interest. The only suspicion that the newspaper could have had of me derives from the fact that, like most of the other Tory Members who were contacted, I am a member of Lloyd's. So I do not think that The Sunday Times could claim that what it did was in the public interest.
The Committee must examine that matter, because that was the newspaper's only possible excuse for bribing Members of Parliament, for coming on the premises of the House with recording equipment and for encouraging Members of Parliament to table questions, knowing full well that those questions would cost the taxpayer money. Perhaps for a start The Sunday Times could reimburse the two Departments for the cost of answering them. I hope that the Committee investigates carefully the role of The Sunday Times in the saga.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that when one signs an early-day motion and has an interest in a company, trade association or whatever, one's interest must be marked as having been registered. I do not see why that cannot apply to questions, too.
In any case, I think that questions are a hugely overrated technique. Why should one want to table a question, unless one wanted information quickly? Surely if one wants information one can write to a Minister, ask for a meeting with a Minister or ring him up. Only in extreme cases would one want to table a question. I have not had the answers that I wanted to the questions that I have tabled

during the past year. I have always found it far more helpful to write to a Minister. Perhaps one consequence of this unhappy saga will be that less taxpayers' money will be wasted in answering questions—apart, that is, from questions for oral answer.
The subject of Members' outside interests has been touched on, and the inquiry may consider that subject in some detail. I declare an interest as a paid director of a company, or a paid consultant to a trade association. I do not hide such connections. I am proud of the role that I play. However, if the Committee is to examine interests it must also consider Members who are sponsored by trade unions, and Opposition Members who are paid by airlines from other countries to visit them. If Members will be influenced by directorships, surely they will be equally influenced by unions sponsoring them in their constituencies and paying for their offices and other expenses. On that note, I feel that the matter should be committed, and that is why I support the motion.

Mr. George Galloway: At least two thoughts occurred to me while I was listening to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) telling us about the banqueter who offered a five-figure sum as an inducement to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). First, I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had reported the improper approach to the House authorities. Secondly, I wondered who got the job after he had turned it down.
I do not think that this has been an especially edifying parliamentary occasion. Conservative Members, for the most part, have not approached the debate with the seriousness and humility that I had imagined they would display. It has not been a pretty sight to watch them braying at the Murdoch newspaper empire—that was not a sound that we heard when on polling day The Sun ran pictures of the former Leader of the Opposition on its front page, headlined:
Will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights?
Nor did we hear it the next day, when The Sun trumpeted:
It's The Sun wot won it".
It seemed then that the devil Murdoch could be supped with using the shortest of spoons. So it is not convincing when Conservative Members now claim that the Murdoch empire is engaged in a profoundly anti-Conservative crusade.
I have no animus against the two individuals involved in the story. Indeed, with one of them, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), I have a friendly relationship. I simply wish, as I suppose he now wishes, that he had not been quite so zealous in his unsubstantiated denunciations of the activities of Monklands district councillors in the very week when he was making what he now concedes were errors of judgment. Certainly if a Monklands district councillor had accepted £1,000 from anyone for doing anything in the council he would now be behind bars. That may be a lesson to Members of Parliament to avoid casually imputing dishonesty to others, especially people who cannot answer back.
I am no zealot about work outside Parliament. I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who say that we should not have other jobs, nor with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who says that we should hand the money back. I occasionally write for money, for


newspapers and magazines including occasionally, in years gone by, The Sunday Times under a previous editor. However, there is all the difference in the world between work of that nature, and registered consultancies with companies—again, I disagree with some of my hon. Friends here—and the acceptance of money for one-off parliamentary acts such as tabling a question.
Somebody asked me today what the moral difference was between a consultancy and a one-off question. I put it to him with what I hope is not too colourful a metaphor to use in the presence of ladies, including yourself, Madam Speaker. At least a consultancy is transparent, rather like a declaration of marriage between the company and the Member of Parliament. Everyone can see that the Member has that relationship, and knows that the marriage will involve the invoking of conjugal rights by one party or the other from time to time. But the act of tabling a question for a big one-off fee is more akin to a five-minute knee-trembler down by the railway line in exchange for a quick cheque. The difference between the two kinds of commerce is like the difference between such rampant commercial promiscuity and open transparent marriage.
It will not do for Conservative Members to think that the public regard whatever sin has been committed by The Sunday Times in the same light as whatever sin has been committed by Members of Parliament who have accepted money in that way. In fact, most members of the public will regard The Sunday Times as having carried out a signal public duty in exposing transactions that ought not to have taken place, as at least one hon. Member has had the grace to concede this evening. In exposing that, the newspaper has done a public duty.
I hope that what The Sunday Times has done is not used as an excuse for the introduction of new curbs against the press or new privacy laws, as has been attempted in the recent past in the House. Such legislation would build high walls and dig deep moats around the lives of Members of Parliament and powerful and rich people so that they might repel all would-be boarders who wanted to see what those rich, powerful and important people—people like us, business people and others—were actually doing.
The tossing around of the word "bribery" in respect of what The Sunday Times did is ill advised because bribery is a criminal offence and, as a criminal offence, requires criminal intent. My dear friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who is a barrister, has told me that the Latin phrase used is "mens rea", which I take to mean the question of the intention behind the money being offered. There cannot be criminal intent in offering money to expose malfeasance or to expose an abuse in public life; that cannot be true. It is simply a contradiction in terms. If the money was offered for the noble purpose of exposing a wrongdoing, it should not be condemned with the ignoble use of the word "bribery".
I wish the Committee godspeed. I hope that it goes about its work diligently, I hope that it does so publicly and I hope that it does so with the view of improving the standing of this House in the public eye, compared with the rather parlous state it is in, I fear, at the minute.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Your statement yesterday, Madam Speaker, which was the catalyst for this evening's debate, will be remembered in the House as a wise adjudication and as a timely opportunity to examine the relationship between the media and this House. I have worked—I declare an interest—for The Sunday Times. I believe that The Sunday Times "Insight" team has had a long and honourable tradition of exposing corruption and treachery. When I worked for The Sunday Times, we were able to expose two hitherto unknown traitors and I believe that that was in the public interest. In the 1960s, the "Insight" team gained considerable admiration for its work in exposing the Whitehall cover-up of Kim Philby. Bruce Page and Philip Knightley were primarily responsible for the investigation and exposure of that episode.
I fear that since those days, investigative journalism has changed. I fear that since the days of Watergate, the journalistic school of Woodward and Bernstein has encouraged journalists to target people in public life. It has made it the acme of journalists' ambition to bring down somebody in public life. In the case of Woodward and Bernstein, it was, of course, the late Richard Nixon.
The reality is that, in this case, clandestine recordings have been made. Conversations have been taped illicitly in the Palace of Westminster. That raises important issues which, I hope, the Committee will investigate. If The Sunday Times can demonstrate a legitimate complaint from an authentic source—the Privileges Committee will need to take evidence on that topic—I well recognise the newspaper's right to pursue its investigations. Investigative journalism is not, however, a licence to invade privacy. According to the terms of the code of practice published by the Press Complaints Commission, clandestine methods, such as recording, are justifiable only when there is no other method of obtaining the information.
If there was widespread corruption or, indeed, any corruption in the House, and if there had been rumours, hon. Members on both sides would have heard those rumours. We now know that, since January, The Sunday Times has been on a quest to ferret out corruption. If the journalists were in pursuit of a single legitimate, authentic complaint, they could, of course, have targeted the person or persons who were the subject of the complaint. However, we now know that hon. Members who, in my judgment, are of considerable probity were approached and offered money. They are individuals whose previous reputation is completely untarnished, even by rumour. The journalists who undertook the investigation will have to answer some very severe questions. Was this, for example, the only way in which they could obtain the evidence? Was there any supporting evidence that justified their actions?
The fact is that the relationship between Members of Parliament and the media will now be investigated by the Committee and I welcome that. I recall making allegations in the House about Robert Maxwell. Soon afterwards, I was interviewed in the Lobby by a journalist in the pay of Robert Maxwell who manufactured a completely bogus story alleging that I had a pecuniary interest in making my remarks and complaints. In fact—

Mr. Galloway: The journalist is sitting in the Gallery.

Mr. Allason: Is he? Well, Alistair, I regret to say that you cost your newspaper a great deal of money.
What is more remarkable is that a few days after an apology had been made in the High Court, the same journalist went round many Opposition Members attempting to create an early-day motion that was critical of my conduct. I have many friends among Opposition Members and I was alerted to what was happening. Again, that matter became the subject of litigation.
The conduct of the press has now got completely out of control in this House. Although there is always the justification of public interest, I hope that the Committee will look carefully at the way in which journalists behave, not just in the Palace, but elsewhere.

Mr. John Butcher: My hon. Friend will know that The Sunday Times has asserted that 20 names were chosen at random. The newspaper drew a blank on 16 of them. Does he agree that the Committee should brook no refusal by The Sunday Times to supply the names of all those approached so that we may know either the scale of the operation that was mounted or whether a truly random sample was put together?

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend makes an important point. You will have noticed during the afternoon, Madam Speaker, that several hon. Members have declared that they were the subject of approaches from The Sunday Times. What is curious is that as far as am aware—I have sat through the debate from the beginning—no Opposition Member has declared that he was approached by The Sunday Times. It is important that The Sunday Times declares the matter fully to the Committee; there should be no excuses.
If the excuse is used that the newspaper has to protect its sources, I remind you, Madam Speaker, and the Committee that on the previous occasion that that defence was deployed—during the Vassall tribunal when two journalists went to prison for refusing to reveal their sources—the reason why the journalists went to prison was that they did not have any sources. They had made up the story and it was on that occasion that the two journalists were exposed and Fleet street itself was exposed for the most disgraceful hypocrisy.
I carry no brief to prevent journalists from investigating issues in the public interest. I have seen no evidence at all so far that anything that has taken place in the past few days, which has tarnished the reputation of hon. Members whom I count among my friends, has been in the public interest.

Mr. Tony Banks: When we bring visitors around this place and they attempt to sit down on the green Benches, they are shouted at by the policemen. I have often wondered why that happened. I found out—I do not know whether the story is true—that it is not allowed on the ground that it could just be that someone sat in the place where their Member of Parliament sat and pushed a bribe down the back of the seat. I must say that, religiously, for the last 11 years I have looked down the back of my seat and I have never found any used fivers, indeed, not even a 50p piece. So bribery has affected and has interested the House over many years. Since I was elected, I notice that I have tabled 6,919 questions. If I had received £1,000 a throw for each of those, I would have

netted a cool £7 million, which would have meant I could have faxed this speech from Mustique or some other exotic place.
Criticism of The Sunday Times is simply out of place. If not one hon. Member had accepted the £1,000, we would have had a strong case for referring The Sunday Times to the Committee of Privileges, if, indeed, we had ever found out about it, which somehow I doubt. However, two hon. Members did accept the bait and they have done themselves and the rest of the House a grave disservice. I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). It was a difficult speech for him to make and we were right to listen to it very carefully. With respect, I would have had more sympathy with him if I had not heard him recently attacking members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers for trying to get a decent return for their services in operating the railway—£1,000 would have gone down very well there.

Dr. John Reid: None of us, of course, is conducting a trial. We are trying to establish the ground rules for the Committee, which will look into the matter. Since the matter has implications for the whole House, because, as several hon. Members have pointed out, the perception of people outside is affected by it, may I ask my hon. Friend a fairly straight question? If The Sunday Times had asked 20 hon. Members to take money and no one had taken it, would the paper have run that as a major story?

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend obviously missed the point, but I said that I doubted very much that we would have heard of the story. But the fact is that we have heard of it and, of course, we now have to deal with it. I do not think that we should turn it into a general attack on The Sunday Times or the press, although we can all feel disquiet about the way in which it went about getting its information. Regrettably, it did get some evidence and we must address that and not attack The Sunday Times.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was right. There is a view among people outside that we are all in this place for ourselves. It is not true, we know that it is not true, but, unfortunately, incidents such as this do not help.
I am very worried about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which is the reason why I am making this speech. He began by suggesting that consultancies were, in many respects, no different from the one-off payment. That worries me because I have a number of consultancies and I must consider that. I act as a parliamentary adviser to three trade unions, for which I receive intermittent payments, which go to my constituency. I also receive money from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to pay a full-time worker because I do much work in that area. I table a lot of questions connected with animal welfare. They are not specifically requested and they are not paid for on a question-by-question basis. However, the sort of things that are being said place worries in my mind and make me feel that we should look carefully at the issue. I may add, I also act as the parliamentary adviser to the London Association of Beekeepers, for which I receive 12 pots of honey and I would pleased to give you one, Madam Speaker, if you were to need it.

Mr. George Howarth: Another sting.

Mr. Banks: That is a very sweet point.
At the end of last year, I gave a cheque to the Fees Office for £8,000: the excess of my office costs. Those consultancies paid for that, in effect. I am putting those points on the record because one needs to consider them as well.
It is quite clear that the Register of Members' Interests is deficient, which our good friend, our dear, departed colleague Bob Cryer was always saying. First, if we are to declare interests, we must declare how much we receive. Secondly, we must declare from whom that money comes and, thirdly, for what was that money given, what services were provided in exchange for that money. Interests must either be transparent so that everyone can see them, or we must stop them completely and say that Members of Parliament cannot serve any outside interest whatever for which they receive payments. That may be the way in which to go forward, but the Committee of Privileges must consider it.
Whatever emerges from this highly unfortunate matter, it is clear that we cannot continue in the way in which we currently operate. If we bring about a change which restores us in the eyes of those we serve, The Sunday Times should be thanked for doing us a great service.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I was grateful to be given the chance to intervene during the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) but my intervention did not quite come out in the way that I intended.
I agree that many people think that we should not have a continuous line of people ruling the country without letting ordinary people come in for one generation or for five years or 10 years. That was one of the reasons why on a previous occasion I argued with the right hon. Gentleman that there was good reason for having the House of Lords, so that some families who are continually represented in Parliament may have a seat without keeping the rest of us out.
The other point about which I feel strongly is that the greatest power over Members of Parliament, the way in which they vote and what they do is the Whips, the party system, which I expressed inelegantly in my intervention.
However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has said that, both in opposition and in government, hon. Members may find themselves losing an argument and then being asked in public to say things that they cannot say whole-heartedly, to put it gently, and merely do the best that they can. I suspect that there is far more of that behaviour than there is of hon. Members who may be bought or induced to do something for money.
I hope that the Committee, if it is the right one, will quickly say that, for tabled written and oral questions, there should be a distinguishing mark to indicate areas in which hon. Members have an interest in the same way that the first hon. Member listed on an early-day motion is marked. I do not understand why the first hon. Member only is marked as having an interest and not every other hon. Member who has signed it. There may be logistical problems, but I think that only the first name of the six is marked. I apologise if I have got that wrong, but I believe that I have described the situation accurately.
We ought to have a system which induces the best to happen and reduces the worst. There are fewer bought Members of Parliament now than there were in the 1930s. I am not saying that all those who were subsidised from outside in the 1930s were bad Members of Parliament. The House has good reason to be grateful to some who were supported, even by newspaper editors, during their times in the wilderness. I declare that I once received £200 from The Sunday Times for writing an article.

Mr. Tony Banks: He was overpaid.

Mr. Bottomley: I may have been overpaid. We also ought to avoid being too sanctimonious.
When I was in Government at a junior level for a time, someone asked me if I kept a diary. I said no. They said that, if I kept a diary, I would be able to earn more money, have more accurate and more interesting reflections and that the details which might be a blur six years later would be down in black and white, with who said what to whom. They said that that would make a good living afterwards or would help to illuminate the process of government. It is difficult to be clear about what is right and what is wrong, but having a discussion about it is a good idea.
I disagree with those who think that we ought to apply the same standards for the press and for Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should set what we expect to be our minimum standards and the press in general should set what it expects to be its minimum standards. Our standards should be higher than those of the press.
There are parallels between the activities of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament and an editor of a newspaper. It is not the written rules which basically control what we say on the Floor of the House, but what people around us are willing to tolerate. It is fair to say that people around journalism are willing to tolerate more, on a consistent basis, that is wrong than we are in the House. There is as much ambition and competition to be the writer of a front-page story in The Sunday Times as there is to be elected to this House and to serve as a Member of Parliament. I am not saying that that ambition and competition always produces bad people. It does not. Indeed, it produces some of the very best. On the way, however, there are casualties. The way in which newspapers proceed and the habits that they adopt deserve examination, preferably by them.
I hope that the Committee of Privileges will be able to bring in special advisers on the press. I hope, for example, that it will consult someone like Professor Stephenson from City university, who runs a journalism course. I hope also that it will take advice from someone like Ray Snoddy of the Financial Times, who is one of the more respected of those who comment on the media. It would be appropriate to ask someone like that who could provide advice to the Committee of Privileges on the elements of the reference that relate to the conduct of the press.
I hope also that the Committee will produce separate reports on the parliamentary side and the press side. To bundle everything in one report would be wrong and would help to distract attention from initiatives that might properly be taken that would be useful, effective and proportionate.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, it is to be hoped that the Committee will pay attention to the Salmon committee's recommendation,


which reflects, probably, the most pointed contribution that has been made to the debate. That could make a difference. It would allow whistle blowers throughout the country to say, "I have some knowledge of a payment. Was it declared by the person who made the payment?" That might lead to a self-checking system.
I have the feeling that the press makes a significant contribution to our country because most of us want to try to do things that the press will not be able to nail us for.
My personal test—I do not pretend to be especially good at all this—is that of the local newspaper. I ask myself whether I am doing something that I am prepared to read about in my local newspaper. If the answer is yes, I ask myself whether I have sent it a press notice. I know, of course, that it will ignore it.
Let us suppose that I am going to the middle east with the Israeli Government or the Palestine Liberation Organisation, or both, or to another area of the world. Am I willing to say it out loud? If I am, have I done it ? That is guidance that I have found useful.
We should have the courage to say almost anything in public. If it is said on the Floor of the House, it can be virtually guaranteed that the press will ignore it. If it is taken up, however, it will come as no surprise and it will appear somewhere on the record.
My first parliamentary question was tabled two years before I was elected to this place. The late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams kindly agreed to table a question on family allowance for the first child. Many people want questions answered in Parliament for many different reasons. It is not a new concept and it is not a bad one. I hope that we shall not give those outside the idea that it is bad to contact a Member and ask for information or help.
Yesterday, at my surgery, I dealt with many different cases. I hope that constituents will never feel thy or embarrassed—the issues may involve business or personal matters, immigration, tax problems or criminal proceedings—in approaching their Member because any of us has been put off, as it were, from the job that we were elected to do.
I regret that which has caused the debate. I believe that the reference to the Committee of Privileges is the right response. The procedure is the best way of getting these issues off the Floor of the House after a short debate. There can be a better debate when we have received the considered views of those who have taken evidence.
There can be no secret sources in this story with the exception of the person who originally said to journalists, "I think that people are taking money that they should not be taking." I look forward to knowing that the Committee of Privileges has had all the tape recordings, all the journalists' notes and all the electronic records in the newspaper's files. On the one occasion that I had seriously to go to law with a newspaper it transpired that most of the things that some of the staff had been saying after I had first made my complaint were falsehoods.
We should follow the audit trail. I understand the problems that may ensue when stories change, but in this instance there should be no secret sources. All the information should be available to the Committee.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall be specific and extremely brief.
I remain concerned that there may be a stitch-up by the Committee of Privileges over its report. I am concerned about the Committee's composition. I refer my hon. Friends to your ruling yesterday, Madam Speaker. You said:
Of course all the rules of the House will be respected."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 831]
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the resolution in paragraph 24 of the first report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1991, which I referred to yesterday, which deals with conflict of interest. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, when replying to the debate, should give us an assurance that no Members who are consultants to any organisation will be a member of the Committee of Privileges to be appointed.
Furthermore, no Members should be appointed to it who are directors of companies which have lobbied, are lobbying or could in future lobby Ministers on behalf of those companies, or ask questions or table motions. I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "And trade unions?"] Yes, trade unions as well.
We need specific assurances on these matters. If they are not forthcoming, the public will accuse the Committee of Privileges of stitching up a bad report.

Mr. David Winnick: I do not take the view that is taken by some outside this place, that the House of Commons is more or less corrupt and that every Member can be bribed to table questions or to act for commercial lobbyists. If a comparison were to be made with other Parliaments, I believe it likely that the House would be found to be relatively clean. It does no service to the cause of parliamentary democracy to give a different impression.
For a considerable time, however, as my right hon. and hon. Friends know, there has been anxiety about the way in which parliamentary facilities, such as questions, early-day motions and letters to Ministers, can be used for commercial purposes.
I remember the controversy before the Register of Members' Interests was introduced. It was argued that we were all honourable Members, and that there was no need for a register. Those who took that view said that the register would impugn our motives even in tabling a question. Now that Enoch Powell is no longer a Member, no one, as far as I am aware, disputes the need for a register. It is accepted.
I see little value in a register that does not give real information about the value of an outside interest. I have written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests—the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—on several occasions, and my point was pursued. My view is simple and clear. Why not give the value of the outside interest? Is it small or large? Why should we not be told? Why should the public not be given that information? Why should a Member feel that the interest is so secretive that in no circumstances should it be revealed?
We all know that there is little or no effective control over lobbyists and the manner in which they use the House.


There is a film—many of us want to see it—that sets out the way in which certain lobbyists go about their business. That is the sort of film that we should see.
I can remember the various occasions when our late colleague, Bob Cryer, raised these matters. He did so not to undermine or discredit Parliament but to ensure that we had a clean Parliament. He wanted to ensure that, where there were outside interests, lobbyists, and payments being made to Members, that information should be available and that everything should be above board. He took that view in the name of parliamentary democracy. In my view, he was right. Incidentally, we much miss him and the work that he undertook day after day in the House.
It is understandable that criticism has been made about The Sunday Times. As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), I think that on the whole The Sunday Times did a job that needed to be done. It is almost inevitable that in future, if we table a question and we have an interest, we shall be expected to declare that interest. That reform will almost certainly come about. The debate is taking place in the light of what The Sunday Times did.
I am always willing to criticise newspapers, but in trying to spotlight a weakness in our parliamentary procedure—outside interests and commercial interests—The Sunday Times did no harm. It will be for the Committee of Privileges to tell me that I am wrong. My view is that The Sunday Times acted in the public interest. If anything, it should be congratulated.
There is a cynical attitude outside this place. Perhaps some Conservative Members will disagree with me, but it is felt by some that we are all in politics for our own good, that more or less all of us can be bought, and all the rest of it. We must dispel that view. We must make the point clearly that we are not in it for our own interests. We must make it clear that Parliament and parliamentary democracy are of the greatest value to the British people and that all our civil liberties would not last five minutes without this place. That is the historical value of the House of Commons.
It is unfortunate that people have a cynical attitude to Parliament. It is essential that we dispel that attitude, not only in our interests as individual Members, but in the interests of parliamentary democracy and our successors in the years, and hopefully centuries, during which this place will continue. It is essential that we do that in the interests of what we are trying to establish and maintain.
There is, perhaps linked to the cynical view, a great deal of concern over what has occurred and what the two hon. Members are accused of. After our debate today, the matter will go to a Committee and it could then be more or less buried. The summer recess is coming up and, by the time the Committee meets, other matters will be on the agenda and public and parliamentary interest in this matter might have faded away.
I hope that we will have a report by the end of the year. These are matters of crucial importance. However much hon. Members may have criticised The Sunday Times, I do not believe any hon. Member has disputed the fact that these matters are important. If the matters are important and if they are to go to the Privileges Committee, we should have a report as quickly as possible. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear that point in mind because

that view is shared by many hon. Members. Obviously the report will be debated and it may be disputed. However, we should not leave it in abeyance for a year or so. The sooner we have that report, the better for this House and for our reputation.

Mr. Michael Connarty: May I first apologise fervently to you, Madam Speaker, for attempting on 11 July to raise a point of order which you ruled out of order because I was trying to suggest that more issues should be considered than just the behaviour of individual Members? I should, of course, have realised that you would have considered the issue more widely and the statement that you made yesterday showed that.

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are concerned with our Standing Orders or breaches of procedure. I caution Members not to raise points of order just because they want to make a point or a comment, which is what so often happens.

Mr. Connarty: I thought that I was in order then, but you ruled me out of order because you knew better than I did.
The point that I was trying to make is very salient to today's debate. I wish to suggest, like many other hon. Members, that the remit of the Privileges Committee should be to look seriously at the inadequacies of the register that we hold at this moment. I tried to make the point that the value of the interest is important.
Sadly, I disagree with my good friend and someone I have admired for some time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who suggested, rather weakly, that value should not be included in the register. That undermined the very splendid case that he made. I also disagree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). He is another good friend of mine and someone I admire. He said that a consultancy was in some way different from taking an individual payment for a particular issue. He said that it was all about a marriage.
I suggest that all hon. Members are already married. To take a consultancy is an infidelity, because we are married to our constituents and to the people we represent. It is actually a bit on the side, when one is so good that one is paid for the service one renders. That is totally inappropriate to this House.
Anything that anyone does in this House which is directly related to influencing the business of the Houses of Parliament or clearly designed by action or inaction to do that should be done only because of someone's beliefs or judgment and not because there is any question of influence by the taking of money for anything that connects us to a party outside which can profit from our actions in this House. We are here to represent our constituents and their interests in a broader frame.
I have stated in the House, and have put it on the record, that I receive money, or my constituency party receives money, from the Union of Communication Workers. It is entirely consistent with the wishes of my constituency party that I defend the Post Office and post office workers. If there were ever a difference, I would suggest to my constituency party that it should let that money go by, so that I could represent my constituents properly and honestly.
I attempted to raise the question of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who asked a question about power in Scottish Question Time on 6 July. That hon. Member is a consultant to Scottish Power. He admits that he has a car from Scottish Power. He has not, in fact, declared how much he has in the register. It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead, whose entry is next to that of the hon. Member for Ayr, has entered the fact that he is an unpaid political consultant for an organisation.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that, if an hon. Member is going to make points about another hon. Member, courtesy requires that that hon. Member should be notified about that in advance?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I had assumed that, in this debate, Members would be very circumspect, and that that is what happened. Has the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) notified the hon. Member concerned?

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has, in fact, been informed. We have discussed the matter at some length. He is aware of the points that I am trying to make and continue to make.

Madam Speaker: Order. May I make myself clear? Has the hon. Member for Falkirk, East informed the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), not simply had a conversation with him at some time?

Mr. Connarty: I formally informed the hon. Gentleman of this, yes.
As a result of what I have described, articles appeared in the Daily Record. In my opinion, and in the opinion of other hon. Members who have spoken, someone who receives a consultancy fee should enter it so that people know the value that is placed on the services.
The question that occurred to me was, what is a consultancy for? The hon. Member for Ayr has said that he has not asked any questions on behalf of Scottish Power in the time that he has been a member of this place arid has been a consultant. It appears to me that, if a company is willing to pay a large sum of money, as yet unspecified as it is not declared in the Register of Members' Interests, and someone does nothing on that company's behalf for two years, that company is getting a very bad deal.
No one in the public domain outside this House believes for a minute that, if someone takes a consultancy fee, something is not being done for it to advantage those who pay the fee.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Connarty: In a moment.
As an hon. Member who pays Scottish Power for his electricity, I am concerned that it is paying a sum of money to an hon. Member to do nothing for the company or for me as one of its customers. That does not make sense. It does not stack up.

Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is always possible to pay someone to keep quiet? The fact that Scottish Power is planning to build a huge interconnector through my constituency, about which the

hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has kept completely quiet despite the fact that many of his constituents are up in arms about it, may have some connection with that.

Mr. Connarty: The point has been well made, and I do not need to repeat it. It seems to me that silence can be bought as much as speech. That is a matter of judgment for the electors in the constituency of Ayr.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Connarty: I have no intention of giving way further in this very brief contribution to the debate.
My point is that there is a question about immunity and privilege in the House in respect of what people can say in the House about members of the public outside, who may be entirely and utterly innocent. When I took up a case in the medical field, I was threatened on occasions by an organisation called the Medical Protection Association. It said that it would take litigation against me. I squared it with the association by telling it that, if it thought that I would be silenced by that threat, it was not on. We have that privilege to protect us in speaking on behalf of our constituents.
When that privilege is abused, and when someone consistently gets up and accuses, on the record, council officials, councillors, or a council of being corrupt and of using dubious practices, such people sully the names of many hard-working officials in local authorities up and down the country. That happened in respect of the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in respect of Monklands. They did that continually and without justification. I sat in this place at 2 am to defend those officials, whom I know to be honest, upright citizens. The Privileges Committee should consider how we can curtail that kind of thing.
I repeat the words of Lord Whitelaw, which were quoted earlier. The point of this House is to set a good example. It should be part of the Committee's remit to see how we can better set a good example. My father used to say: "Civility costs nothing, and honesty earns admiration." That should be the aim of the Privileges Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: In moving my motion, I sought to do two things: to refer to the Privileges Committee the allegations contained in The Sunday Times article, and the circumstances in which they were made, and separately, to refer to the Privileges Committee the wider questions of the public duties and private interests of Members of Parliament. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have emphasised different aspects, but no one has spoken against the motion. Therefore, I assume that the motion commands a consensus in the House, and I hope that it will be agreed without a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the matter of the complaint, together with the issues referred to in the statement by the Speaker on 12th July, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that my name was raised in the Chamber a short time ago, and the individual who raised it suggested that I had been informed that that was his intention. That is not the case; I have had no


information about it. I accept that, last Monday, I was informed belatedly that my name was to be raised, but today I have received no such notification.
I understand that the comments made on Monday referred to the question that I asked at Scottish Question Time about nuclear generation. I want to make it quite clear that nuclear generation has nothing to do with Scottish Power—with which, I openly acknowledge, I have an association.

Madam Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that quite clear. I went out of my way only a few moments ago to ask twice very clearly whether the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) had informed the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that he was to refer to him in this debate. I accepted the word of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, as an honourable Member of the House, that he had informed the hon. Member for Ayr beforehand. I seem to have been mistaken in that—perhaps I might now have an explanation.

Mr. Connarty: If you, Madam Speaker, did say, "in this debate" I apologise. I do not recall you saying that. I did, quite timeously, inform the hon. Gentleman, and phoned his office on Monday. I said that I would be raising the issue of his connection with the consultancy, and that—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me make it quite clear: I twice during this debate referred to the matter. I deprecate the answer that the hon. Gentleman has given me. We shall now move on with our business.

Orders of the Day — European Union (Accessions) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

EXTENDED MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Clause 1 is important. It provides an opportunity for several countries to join the European Community. If we do not approve the clause, that opportunity will not arise. I wish to make three points that I hope the Committee will consider in relation to clause 1 only.
First, I hope that the Committee will bear it in mind that the countries of the European Economic Area have had one of the most shameful and scandalous tricks played on them about the EEA. They were approached in 1989 by Mr. Jacques Delors about the idea of an EEA, which was presented as an attractive half-way house that would give its members the advantages of the single European market without giving away their sovereignty and neutrality.
Now that we know the details of the EEA, it is abundantly clear that all those countries have to accept about 60 per cent. of every EC law, whether or not they are a member. I hope that we shall bear it in mind when considering the clause that when we offer those countries an opportunity, it is not nearly as significant as some people think. It is not a choice between liberty and abandoning liberty, but a political decision. The countries have to obey the majority of EC laws, but they play no part in their drafting.
Secondly, while Ministers gave us assurances in the earlier stages of the discussions when we were considering the merits of the Bill, I hope that our friends in Norway and Sweden will bear it in mind that all the assurances given to other applicants many years ago have been shown to be virtually bogus. That still happens. Hon. Members will remember that when Britain was joining the EC, we were told that it would lead to a dramatic improvement in trade with the EC. We always had a positive trade with Europe before we joined, but we now have a cumulative deficit of £100,000 million, which has done grave damage to our economy. We were also told that membership would provide a great boost to jobs. The continent is awash with unemployment and the EC faces a more serious economic problem than most other parts of the world where there are no wars.
Thirdly, I hope that Norway will consider the assurances that we have given to our fishermen. I represented a Scottish constituency at the time and was astonished at the extent to which fishermen in Scotland and England voted for the EC because they were in no doubt that a clear assurance had been given that all would be well with the fishing industry. We have seen for ourselves that


the value of the catch of North sea fish achieved by the British fishing industry has declined by more than three quarters since we joined.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, especially to what he has to say about the fishing industry which, as he knows, is close to my heart. When the Foreign Secretary presented the Bill on Second Reading, he said that the accession of Norway would provide British fishermen with great opportunities from 1997 onwards. Is the hon. Gentleman a little sceptical about that promise?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Frankly, I do not believe one word of what was said. That is not because I regard Ministers as disreputable or as a bunch of liars, but because pledges are made to please everyone. I would ask the Norwegians to look at the declarations, which apparently guarantee everything. I hope that Norwegians will realise that the declarations are of no value; they have no legal binding and contain nothing one could refer to in a court. They are simply statements of intent with no validity. The Norwegians should not worry about the British, but think about the Spaniards, the assurances that they have already been given, and the promises and pledges that they have already made to their fishermen.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is not one of the problems with the declarations that we do not know their status? It is part of the difficulty in understanding the way in which the European Court of Justice works. It is not a court of justice in the sense that our House of Lords is. It is a quasi-political body that constantly takes into account political gestures such as a declaration or the general mood of the Community at any one time.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend, who is wiser than me and knows far more about such matters, will know that declarations have no validity. They are shoved in to pacify and please people and give them assurances, but they are worth nothing. My hon. Friend knows that well, which is why, with his usual professionalism, he interrupted me to allow me to underline that point. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is one of the honest Ministers—

Mr. Budgen: He was.

Sir Teddy Taylor: He certainly is. I think that the Minister is a decent chap. He is someone whom I have always regarded as truthful and honourable, and he would not intentionally tell a lie.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that we are being misled day after day. Only yesterday I had word—this will shock hon. Members—that a massive new job involving a Government office that was being carried out in Southend had been put off because there was a panic about spending. It coincided with the publication of a statement by the Paymaster General that, to our astonishment and horror, and despite all the assurances given by Ministers, in 1995 our gross contribution would increase by £2,000 million. That is £3 per week per British family. That came out of the blue. It was not expected.
We also found out from a paper produced by the Commission last week that, even though Ministers had been telling us that agricultural spending would fall as a

result of all these wonderful reforms, agricultural spending would exceed the legal limit agreed in Edinburgh by more than £1,000 million.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend said that the budget and our contribution to it will increase by a massive amount. I do not think that anyone anticipated that that would happen. Certainly, at the Edinburgh summit when the financial conditions were agreed, there was no indication that our budget would soar to those heights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the House would be well advised to throw out the financial mechanisms agreed at the Edinburgh summit to increase our contribution, if they come to the House?

Sir Teddy Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows, the House has no power. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate—I say this sincerely—that under the clause, in which we give the people of Norway and Sweden the opportunity to join the Community, what he is being told is basically utter nonsense.
If one asks Ministers about the legal limits, they say, "It was agreed in Edinburgh. The legal limits will be adhered to. Nothing can stop it." Here is how they intend to do it. I have the papers here from the EC. I also have something from the Treasury, although it is not meant to be generally available. The Government will have to draw on the monetary reserves. Remember what happened the last time we had strict budget controls under our wonderful previous Prime Minister. The Government used the metric year, with which financial journalists, financiers and rich people are familiar. One had 10 months of spending and 12 months of income. That is how they kept to the legal limit then. Now they will keep it by drawing on monetary reserves. They will keep the limits agreed at Edinburgh by doing a fiddle and a fraud.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate when they pass the clause, first, that there is the clearest of evidence that the poor unfortunate people of Norway and Sweden will pay more per head in net contributions than people in the United Kingdom. I feel thoroughly ashamed, as I am sure that all hon. Members do, that the poor families in Southend-on-Sea have to pay—according to our Foreign Secretary—£28 a week extra in taxes and higher food prices simply because of the repulsive CAP. Next year they will have to pay £5 a week for their net contribution. That is £33 a week which the poor families of Southend and England, Scotland and Wales will pay unnecessarily.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard Front-Bench Members argue strongly that to widen rather than deepen the Community would make the United Kingdom's financial position easier. Surely now, even with the widening, we shall have to pay even more than we pay today.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is so right. I know that people in Northern Ireland are suffering from poverty. I hope that the Labour party will highlight the position. I know that it fights for poor and neglected people. Are Labour Members aware, unlike some of the former silly twits in our Foreign Office, that poor families will pay £33 a week that they do not need to pay?
I hope that in passing the clause we appreciate that we are telling the people of Norway and Sweden not to be misled by the assurances. Happily, we are well aware that the people of Sweden and Norway are great people. The


opinion polls show that 52 per cent. of the people of Norway want nothing to do with the EC. Only 28 per cent. are in favour. We know that the good people of Sweden are of the same democratic mind: 43 per cent. oppose it and only 31 per cent. are in favour. I hope that they will appreciate that they should not believe a word of what they are told about the future.
The Foreign Office is inherently optimistic. Ministers say, "Do not worry. It will be all right. Things will get better. The CAP will be reformed. Expenditure will be controlled. Budget limits will be imposed." People should not bother about that stuff. They should think about all the assurances that have been given about trade and jobs. They should appreciate that western Europe is awash with unemployment, that the position is appalling and that borrowing is getting out of control.
I hope that by passing the clause we shall tell the good people of Norway and Sweden that if they say yes they will do great damage to their country and to the poor people of their country, who have suffered appallingly, particularly from filthy EC taxes such as VAT, which are simply a tax on the poor. More importantly, they will take themselves into an economy that is protectionist, bad, awash with unemployment and in great misery.
I hope that we shall give a simple message to the people of Norway and Sweden: do not be conned, do not be fooled and remember that democracy should matter to every one of us.

Mr. Marlow: A subject which, rightly, has exercised the House deeply when we have considered enlargement of the Community, is qualified majority voting—for the very good reason that it affects the powers of the House. No one would argue, whether he is in favour of extending qualified majority voting or takes the opposite view, that qualified majority voting is not an important issue for the House. When something is decided by qualified majority voting, our Government and, therefore, the House of Commons can be cut out. Therefore, the higher the threshold and the smaller the blocking minority, the greater the remaining powers that we have.
I hope that the House will excuse a certain amount of simple mathematics. The treaty states that if all four countries join the Community, we shall require a blocking minority of 27. That is 27 votes out of 90—precisely 30 per cent. Let us go through a few what ifs. We know that Finland will join. It wants Europe to protect it from a resurgence of the Soviet Union and wants to be part of the European Union. One can understand why. But what if Norway votes no? It has three votes. Let us say that it decided to reduce the blocking minority by one. Then a blocking minority of 26 out of 87 votes would be required. That is a blocking minority of less than 30 per cent. So the powers of Her Majesty's Government and the House would be sustained and reinforced, albeit marginally.
Let us suppose that Sweden alone decides not to join. It has four votes. Let us suppose that the blocking minority is reduced by about one. We should then require a blocking minority of 26 out of 86 votes. That is greater than 30 per cent. If Norway and Sweden dropped out together and two votes were taken off the blocking minority, the effect would be the same.
The second and third options would make it more difficult for Her Majesty's Government to block. Therefore, it would reduce the powers of the House. That is for general, run-of-the-mill qualified majority voting. On some issues such as a proposal that does not come from the Commission, a decision is not dependent only on qualified majority voting. A threshold of member states has to agree. Put another way, a threshold of member states has to disagree.
At present, if five out of 12 do not want it, it does not happen. Under the proposals, if all four countries join, if six out of 16 do not want, we also have a block. Suppose that Norway and Sweden do not join. Will five out of 14 or six out of 14 be able to block? It makes a lot of difference.
We raised the question of qualified majority voting on Monday. My hon. Friend the Minister was helpful and referred us for guidance to article 2.2. So what happens if there is an unfortunate hitch, things do not go as the Euro-elite—the witch doctors of Brussels—would wish and some of these good countries decide in their wisdom that they do not want to join the EC? I am pleased to be able to tell the House that it is very straightforward. All one has to do is look at article 2.2, which states:
The Council of the European Union acting unanimously shall decide immediately upon such adjustments as have become indispensable".
That is one for the lawyers, isn't it? Who decides whether something is indispensable? Does it have to be a unanimous decision that a change is indispensable? If there is no unanimity, there can be no immediacy.
Let us suppose that Norway and Sweden do not join. At the moment, a blocking minority of 27 is required. If the Council is not unanimous, and my hon. Friend on the Council says that he does not agree immediately—and it has to be immediately—with the views of everybody else, what happens? The treaty says that 64 votes will be needed for a qualified majority vote. If the Government do not agree, and if some of the countries concerned do not join the Community, the powers of Britain and of the House are increased.
If one looks at the text of the treaty and the words unanimously, immediately and indispensable, one sees that the Government could actually strengthen our protection with regard to qualified majority voting if one or more of the four applicant countries does not join the Community. It is important that the House should know today—before we agree to the clause—what action the Government will take and what the Government's interpretation will be of those facts.
The treaty is a legal text, and I am sure that the Government totally understand its implications. I am sure that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister understand how important the matter is with regard to the powers of Government and of the House. I am sure that he will be able to tell the House clearly and unambiguously what the Government will do in the circumstances that I have set out, and what the Government believe to be the meaning of that text within the treaty.

Mr. Michael Bates: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your clarification on a matter of guidance given to Members on page 119 of "Erskine May". My point of order relates to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to whom I have given notice of my intention to raise the matter. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be in his place to respond,


given that this is the Committee following the Second Reading of the Bill. The comments to which I shall refer were made on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman said:
How dare the Foreign Secretary conclude that hon. Members have such short memories and that the people of this country forget so quickly the promises and commitments solemnly given in the House of Commons and in European summits about their approach to the European Union. In a desperate attempt to cling on to votes at any price, the Foreign Secretary abandoned all his long-held principles on Europe, whereas I never have."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 700.]
I seek your guidance on how that statement relates to page 119 of "Erskine May". Earlier in the debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had voted yes in the 1975 referendum, although he did not refer to the fact that he—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may continue in a second. I hope that he will relate this to clause 1 stand part, because that is the issue before us. If he does not, he will have to find a different occasion on which to raise the matter.

Mr. Bates: May I seek your guidance—

The Chairman: Order. I have given guidance, which I hope will be taken.

Mr. Bates: It will be taken, Mr. Morris. When will I have an opportunity to raise the matter, because my point of order relates to the Second Reading of the European Communities (Accessions) Bill?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman might like to see me later, and I shall be very happy to give any assistance that I can. But as of this moment, I am solely concerned with clause 1 stand part. The hon. Gentleman's point of order clearly does not relate to that.

Mr. Mike Gapes: This debate is important for the four applicant countries. If the four countries are successful—as I hope they will be—in joining the European Union, the Union will be enlarged in an interesting way. Three of those countries are neutral, and the fourth is a member of NATO.
Under the treaty of European Union, the Western European Union will become an increasingly important part of the European Union. Article J.4, paragraph 2, of the treaty states:
The Union requests the Western European Union, which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. The Council shall, in agreement with institutions of the WEU, adopt the necessary practical arrangements.
It is clear that the "necessary practical arrangements" referred to will have big implications for the European Union. There may be new members coming into the European Union to add to the existing members which are not members of WEU—at present, the Irish Republic, which is neutral, Denmark, which has so far made it clear that it does not wish to be a member of WEU, and Greece, which is in the process of joining.
As the European Union enlarges; as we approach the intergovernmental conference in 1996; as the reflection committee is established in 1995 to prepare far that conference—and given that it is clear that the future of Europe's defence and security will be an integral part of the discussions in the IGC and in the preparatory meetings for it—we will be in a complex position. There may be

members coming into the Union and taking part in the preparatory process of that IGC which have not so far been either in NATO or in the WEU. What will be the implications of that for the future of European defence and security?
We must look at what the Maastricht treaty says and at the direction in which things may be moving over the next few years. I am very concerned that not enough attention is given in this country to the defence and security aspects of the European Union. In the past, all of us have taken NATO for granted. The foolish decisions taken by the United States Congress about the situation in Bosnia and the lifting of the arms embargo have meant that there is a growing tension in the relationship between the two sides of the Atlantic. Fortunately, we have seen more positive and Atlanticist approaches coming from France in recent months. In February this year, the French Government adopted a new defence White Paper which made the most positive statements ever made by France about NATO and the transatlantic relationship.
President Clinton recently addressed the French National Assembly. It may have been coincidence that his visit to Europe took place when our Parliament was not sitting; in any event, he did not come and speak to us. We know that he has been in Germany in the past few days, talking about the special relationship between the United States and Germany—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unique."] It is unique, but it is also important to recognise that our historic relationship with the United States cannot be taken for granted.
Because of the attempts by the Conservative party to interfere in the last American presidential election, the relationship faces some difficulties that need to be dealt with. I hope that we will use all available channels to try to build up that relationship again.
The French Government's White Paper makes it clear that they want a continuing American presence in Europe. When President Clinton spoke to the French National Assembly, he said that the United States would remain committed to a defence policy involving keeping American troops in Europe. It is quite probable, however, that the American Congress will not go along with the President's commitment to keeping 100,000 troops on European soil indefinitely. Budgetary pressures and pork barrel politics are likely to mean that the Americans are more in favour of closing bases in Europe than they are of closing bases in the United States.
We must be careful about our approach to European defence and security; we do not want to send the wrong signals across the Atlantic to the American public and legislatures. The French White Paper was welcome in that respect, but we must go further. As the European Union grows bigger and as the Visegrad countries join in the next wave of enlargement after the Nordic countries and Austria, I hope that Europeans collectively will begin to do far more about our defence and security. If we do not, we may find a dangerous vacuum that we might rely on the Americans to fill—but the American commitment to fill it may not be as great as we might suppose.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has said that Britain should not take the special relationship with America for granted; and that the French seem to have made a pitch at improving that relationship;


and that the Germans have too, if I extrapolate correctly. He strongly suggests building up that relationship—but then goes on to say that we must have a separate European defence strategy. The two ideas do not exactly go hand in hand.

Mr. Gapes: I did not use the word "separate". I am not in favour of separating west European NATO countries or WEU countries from the relationship with the United States. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument—

The Chairman: Order. I am rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman will develop his argument about the four countries joining, instead of sticking to his brief, which covers transatlantic matters.

Mr. Gapes: I will indeed, Mr. Morris. Sweden, Austria, Finland and Norway already make a significant contribution to the United Nations defence effort. We must try to persuade them to come closer to WEU and hence to NATO's collective security role in Europe and the world. If the United Nations Security Council asks NATO for help in some regional conflict, or if NATO asks WEU for such help, or if the two work side by side, a difficulty may arise. Member states of the European Union that are not in NATO or WEU may also want to contribute to such security efforts, but they are not institutionally integrated with the other Western European Union countries—Britain, France and, following the Karlsruhe judgment, Germany.
There may be a way around this problem. NATO has developed a concept of joint task forces that might provide a practical solution. It will be far easier, however, if, having joined the European Union, the applicant countries at the time of the IGC in 1996 consider their relationship with European defence and security structures.
After all, the IGC will have to consider the future of the Western European Union. Its treaty, based on the 1948 treaty of Brussels, has a 50-year life. The issue will therefore be central to the debate in 1996 and beyond.
I believe that the Government should be doing far more to educate the public and Conservative Back Benchers about the importance of this issue. It is not enough to see the European Union as being merely about free markets or deregulation. We have to discuss the political and security aspects of Europe, including its defence policy and its defence relationships both with the United States and within the United Nations. It is high time we began a public debate about that.
Some ambiguities remain. The Maastricht treaty seems to face both ways. Article J.4, paragraph 1, states:
The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.
Paragraph 4 of the same article, however, qualifies that statement:
The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
The reasons for the differing paragraphs are clear. During preparations for the Maastricht treaty, in 1990–91, there was a great deal of tension among the British, the

Dutch and, later, the Italian Governments, which had a more Atlanticist approach and, on the other side, the Franco-Belgian approach which favoured building a separate west European defence identity. The choice was fudged, and the ambiguity remains.
The fact is that WEU does not have an integrated military command structure or control over armed forces. It is still a shadow organisation which lacks the defence structures that NATO possesses. Still, the French Government, and some other Governments, have long pursued the ambition of a European defence policy without the United States.

The Chairman: Order. This is an absolutely fascinating lecture, but the hon. Gentleman really must relate it to the four applicant countries, which he has not mentioned in the past five minutes. I shall have to be very firm with the hon. Gentleman. He must relate his speech specifically to accession of the four applicant countries.

Mr. Gapes: When Sweden, for example, joins the European Union, how will it relate to the defence debate? Will the Swedes, who have been neutral since 1812, be prepared to engage in a debate about the future of European defence and security? Will they take the attitude that they would rather not discuss the issue, or—as I suspect—will they decide, even though they are not members of WEU or NATO, that it is extremely important? Given the ending of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fact that the Swedes need to have security in the Baltic and a close relationship with their neighbours, particularly the Norwegians, will they decide to take a role in that discussion? We should be doing all that we can to encourage Sweden, and likewise Finland, to become involved in that debate and, in doing that, influence Denmark towards joining the Western European Union.
The position of Norway is more difficult. As was said on Second Reading and earlier today, it is not clear whether Norway will vote for membership of the European Union. I very much hope that it will, but I understand from my friends in the north of Norway that the problem of the rural and fishing communities is very serious. Oslo may vote in favour, but outside Oslo people may vote against. There is serious danger of a repeat of what happened in 1972. That would be a serious setback, not just to the future of European co-operation, but to European defence and security.
If Norway stays out of the European Union and, therefore, stays out of the emerging, growing western European defence structures of the WEU, it will be more difficult to get Sweden and Denmark to play a more positive role. I very much hope that the Norwegian people will see the sense and logic of that future position, but I fear that they may not, in which case the architecture of European defence and security will become even more complicated than it could be if the four countries join the WEU.
I should like to say something about Austria and its neutrality.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to Austria, has he the slightest evidence of any sort from anywhere for his ridiculous statement that Oslo is likely to vote yes? Does he agree that there is not the slightest sign of that from any opinion poll? Why did he say that and where is the proof?

Mr. Gapes: I have no more evidence than the hon. Gentleman does about what will happen in future, but it is clear that the urban populations have been more positive about European integration, as have the young and educated populations, and that people living in rural areas—

Sir Teddy Taylor: That is not proof.

Mr. Gapes: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will answer his point.
People in rural and fishing communities have justifiable fears about the impact of Spanish trawlers and fishing quotas, but the people in urban areas are dependent: upon manufacturing industry and international trade. They know that the future of Norway as a wealthy west European country depends on access to markets and trade and co-operation with its Nordic neighbours. That is something from which Norway outside the European Union would not benefit indefinitely. For those reasons I believe that the urban populations, particularly in Oslo, are more positive than those in rural areas, but it is impossible to say whether or not that would represent a majority. I hope that it will.

Dr. Godman: On the basis of my experience of Norway and Norwegian communities, which extends over many years, I am not so sure that there is such a gap and distance between the urban and rural communities. May I also point out that many people in Oslo and its conurbation have strong family links with Bodo, Vardö, Hammerfest and other northern communities?

Mr. Gapes: People who live in Tromso, Kirkenes, Narvik or the Lofoten islands will undoubtedly be worried about the impact of membership, just as the people who live in northern areas such as Lulea and Norrbotten in Sweden and the Nordkallotten in the Arctic circle will feel more peripheral to the European Union. They may well be more negative than those living in Stockholm, Malmo or other places in the south of the country. Nevertheless, I stand by my point and will now move on to talk about Austria.
7.45 pm
Austrian neutrality has to be considered differently from that of Finland or Sweden. After all, Austria was neutral because, after the second world war, the Russian troops withdrew voluntarily from Austria and a deal was struck whereby Austria became a neutral country when the Russians withdrew. Austria considers itself part of the main western European economic system, but it also sees itself as a bridge to Hungary and other central and eastern European countries.
I believe strongly that Austria will have fewer difficulties in terms of integration with the Western European Union and the European defence and security structure than Sweden and Finland, but we also have to be sensitive to the fact that Austria borders on Yugoslavia. The political and economic problems in that relationship will be negligible compared with those of dealing with the continuing war and conflict on those borders.
No doubt this is outside the terms of the debate and I shall not pursue the point, but it is imperative that the European Union does far more to get the warring parties in Bosnia together to bring about a peace settlement and put pressure not just on the Serbs but on the Government in Sarajevo, who are as much opposed to an indefinite peace

treaty and compromise as the other side. All sides in that conflict bear responsibility, and we should be putting pressure on them all for agreement at this stage.
The future of the Western European Union and the European Union will be greatly strengthened if there is a positive vote in the referendums in Sweden, Finland and, it is to be hoped, Norway.
I am confident that, if the general election in Sweden results—as I expect it to—in the return to power of Ingvar Carlsson and the Social Democratic party, that will lead to a positive result in the referendum. I am worried that, if by some freak, the present Prime Minister, Mr. Bildt, remains in power, the voters will be less likely to support accession to the European Union. On that basis, it is in the interests of Europe, Britain and certainly Sweden and its neighbours if we get a Social Democrat Government in Sweden this year, as I hope, and am confident, that we will.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have heard a most interesting analysis of the effects of the new applicant nations joining the European Union and the effect that that is likely to have on the emerging security policy.
It is curious that the hon. Gentleman's useful and perceptive analysis seemed to reach absolutely the wrong conclusions. I congratulate him on spotting that article J.4 of the Maastricht treaty is a complete fudge that will be worsened by the admission of more neutral countries. The prime concern, however, should be the coherence of NATO, which the legislation undermines.
For a few moments the hon. Gentleman sounded like an Atlanticist. To conclude that we are sending the wrong signals to the United States and that, to redress that, we need to develop the security policy of the European Union even faster is to get the wrong end of the stick. We need to explain to the United States and to Bill Clinton that European politics is not quite so simple as Mr. Clinton apparently thinks it is, and that we can construct a sensible defence and security policy in Europe only with the American relationship as its linchpin, as it has always been. NATO, not the European Union, has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years since the end of the second world war.
The European Union has demonstrated the "efficiency" of its common foreign security policy through the conduct of its policy in Yugoslavia. God forbid that that should be translated to the security of the European Union as a whole. It will not work—it cannot work. An enforced consensus among countries with such diverse perspectives and views of the world—different Weltanschauungen, one might say—will never produce a coherent policy. NATO's effectiveness was built on the fact that only some of the European nations were involved with it and able to give it a coherent policy.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of the American part of Europe's defence. Is it not possible, however, that Europe had become so excessively dependent on America that when it was left alone to intervene in an attempt to establish peace in the former Yugoslavia it could produce only a farce rather than any meaningful contribution with a chance of success?

The Chairman: Order. Before we go any further, let me point out that all references to Yugoslavia are way outside the terms of the clause stand part debate. I hope that


hon. Members will recognise that, and return to the subject of the four specific countries mentioned in the Bill and their relationship.

Mr. Jenkin: Clause 1 is at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the accession of the four applicant states. What does that accession mean, and what sort of Europe will it bring us to? Listening to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday, I was struck by how differently each of us assesses the latest developments in Europe; having read the same evidence, we reach opposite conclusions. Most interestingly, in Monday's debate my right hon. Friend's optimism about the efficacy of current policy was confounded not just by Euro-sceptic critics but by Euro-enthusiasts: we agree on what is happening in Europe, but it does not seem to be the official Foreign Office line.
The paradox of the enlargement, to which clause 1 is vital, is that while enlargement represents a step towards a new Europe—a wider, more free-trading Europe—the old Europe of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand is still trying to reassert itself. I welcome the Bill and the clause, but I question whether we are seeing the dawn of the new Europe that we British Conservatives now envisage. Is the old Europe—the western Europe of the cold war—perhaps merely adapting its grip?
The Europe of Monnet, Schuman and Adenauer, of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand, was founded on the stability provided by the cold war. Those people's views and policies were forged by the aftermath of the second world war. They were and are among those who founded and promoted the western European Christian Democrat-Social Democrat consensus which built the western Europe that we know today.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confessed to being an enthusiast of that tradition in his recent speech to the German Christian Democrat Union Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Bonn. He explained how he had seen the Berlin wall go up 30 years ago, and described the impression that it had made on him. It should be added that the British political tradition never truly embraced that consensus, preoccupied as we were—and remain—with our changing global role in international politics. The cold war, however, created a certainty and stability in which the consensus provided comfort for a divided continent. Western Europe was divided from the east, overshadowed by the communist bloc and held in the US embrace of NATO.
The subject of the clause is, most directly, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway. Three of those countries excluded themselves from NATO, and they all excluded themselves from one or more of the formal international structures. Nevertheless, they were all firmly embedded in the free west. In particular, the neutral nations were able to benefit from the effect of NATO's protection, but without the expense of commitment. Today, the Berlin wall which so shaped political opinions and created consensus in western Europe is down, the communist bloc has disintegrated, the cold war has ended and Germany is reunited; all of that certainty has gone. All over the world the post-war ground rules have been ripped up and we must radically alter our basic assumptions about that world.
Much is better. In the middle east, there is more promise of a mutually agreed settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute;

in South Africa, apartheid has been ended in a way for which none had dared to hope; and capitalism is newly confident, especially in the far east. Much is ominous, however. There is a new multitude of feuds, flashpoints and wars across the globe—

The Chairman: Order. I am sure that there are all sorts of flashpoints around the world, but not many are relevant to clause 1 stand part.

Mr. Jenkin: My point, Mr. Morris, is that European politics and the enlargement with which we are dealing cannot be immune to all those changes around the world.
On the contrary, Christian democracy has been swept aside in Italy, is being subsumed into Gaullism in France and, even in Germany, is adopting a more overtly nationalist hue. Nor can British politics be immune; the question is, what should be our response?
When Lady Thatcher first suggested at Bruges that the EC should be extended to include national capitals such as Prague, Warsaw and Budapest—and, by implication, Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden—she was regarded with hostility and derision. Now the enlargement of the European Union appears to be orthodox. Why has Germany, at first apparently hostile, so changed its view? The fact is that it has not. Whereas Lady Thatcher advocated EC expansion to break down the barriers which divided Europe and to promote the widening of free trade, this enlargement will have the opposite effect. As has been pointed out, although we no longer have a Berlin wall, there is a new wall across Europe—a wealth wall, erected by the west. We in the United Kingdom do not set limits to EU expansion. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister often speaks of his desire to see a free trade Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, but others' enlargement ambitions are much more cautious because they are trying to maintain the old certainties of cold war Europe.
This enlargement is only a very small first step towards the kind of Europe that will match the agenda set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in an article in The Economist on 24 September last year. There is no sign in this accession treaty of the multi-layer, multi-speed, multi-track Europe that he advocated in his Ellesmere Port address.

The Chairman: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman spoke on Second Reading, but these are Second Reading points. We are discussing whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill; that clause relates to just four countries. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about other countries, other speeds and other articles which have nothing to do with clause 1. I suggest that he think again about continuing to read out a speech that he has written. In any event, he really must relate his speech to clause 1 stand part.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In fact, this treaty is aggregated with others, including the Maastricht treaty, and therefore automatically—through the acquis communautaire—includes reference to all matters relating to Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway. If I may say so, it would be out of order to rule such matters out of order on the ground that they are irrelevant.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I recognise that his knowledge of the subject is deep.


However, he is wrong again. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) wishes to challenge the Chair, I shall have to take appropriate action. This is not a Second Reading debate; it is a Committee stage and we are debating clause 1 stand part. There are four countries involved. If the hon. Member for Stafford thinks that this is a great joke, perhaps he will share it with me afterwards. We are dealing with four countries: we are not dealing with other countries that may wish to join the European Community at some time in the future. I make that point to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and I hope that he will return to relevant matters.

8 pm

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: I do not think that we want another point of order.

Mr. Dykes: It is a different point of order. May I seek your guidance? The House will be grateful for your ruling on the previous matter. In a clause 1 stand part debate, it is normal for people to make speeches which are relevant to the clause and which are spontaneous in the sense of an intrinsic debate rather than reading a closely typewritten script somewhat akin to Kim Il-sung' s final speeches.

The Chairman: The House recognises that the hon. Member for Colchester, North has done an assiduous amount of research and preparation. Unfortunately, his research has gone beyond the clause under discussion. Perhaps he will amend his notes accordingly.

Mr. Jenkin: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Morris. I apologise if I have been leading the Committee astray.
My speech principally concerns clause 1, which refers to the accession treaty involving the four countries. If we approve the clause, it will take Europe in one direction or another; I wish to discuss which direction the Community is taking in approving the clause.
In the accession treaty there is no sign of the development of a multi-track Community. The central pillar of the Union remains inviolate. None of the applicant states sought so much as an opt-out from the social chapter or from monetary union or from any other aspect of the European Community. By the accession they become obliged to accept every jot and tittle of the acquis communautaire and to accept its ever-widening reach and scope. The enlargement is likely to strengthen the centralising tendencies of the Community. It gives a wider field of national protagonists for the central institutions of the Community to play off one against the other. Even our vain efforts to achieve a minor concession on the arrangements for qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers was ruthlessly brushed aside and condemned as obstructive.

Ms Joyce Quin: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is against the enlargement because of the fears about centralism that he has suddenly expressed?

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Lady had been paying attention to my speech, she would know that I have already said that I am in favour of the Bill, the clause and the enlargement.
There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. First, the enlargement will serve to maintain the federalist

agenda in the European Community. After all, that is what the applicant Governments want and it can be explained easily. The countries had no need overtly to join western Europe when they were held to us by the iron curtain. Today, particularly as small states, they fear exclusion from a bloc which is no longer defined by super-power politics but which defines itself by its supra-national institutions, its laws, policies and interests. Article B of the Maastricht treaty specifically establishes the objective of the Union
to assert its identity on the international scene".

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I acknowledge the consistency that he and many of his colleagues sitting around him have adopted on these matters. If the Bill and the proposed accession of the four countries, to use his phrase, serves only to maintain the federalist momentum of the European Union, how can the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues fail to vote against it since they are opposed in principle to any federalist momentum?

Mr. Jenkin: It does not accelerate the process that is already under way. It reinforces it. It does not reverse it in the way that the Government have declared. I shall deal with the only way to reverse the centralising tendencies of the European Community later in my comments.
With communism no longer the defining threat, with NATO unsure of its ongoing role, with increasing emphasis upon Europe organising its own security—however unrealistic that may be—and against the background of endemic European protectionism towards the east, the applicant states feel safer in the embrace of the Franco-German axis than outside it. That is despite their superior economic performance over the past 20 years. Although I welcome their accession and their net contributions to the burgeoning EC budget, I wonder whether they will find that accession helps them to adapt more quickly to the ever more competitive world in which we live. Do they believe, vainly, that federalism will obviate the need to become competitive?
The second conclusion is that the Government must continue to adapt new policies and a new coherent anti-federalist approach to Europe in time for the intergovernmental conferences in 1996. That is not helped by the present and rather laughable ambiguity on the single currency.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the fresh impetus that he has brought to our thinking with his writings and speeches. He is right to place emphasis on free trade and the wider enlargement needed to stabilise the new democracies in eastern Europe. He is right to labour the need to end the requirement for uniformity across Europe. The nation states of Europe are not regions to be absorbed into a superstate—they are Europe itself. By his Corfu veto, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to practise the tactics that he will need to employ to avoid the United Kingdom's absorption into a federal Europe in 1996. I congratulate my right hon. Friend because this is not retrospection or reaction. It is the sort of modernisation of the Conservative party that we must have if we are to remain in government, having already held office for such a long period. Neither Europe nor the world has stood still in the past 15 years, and nor must we.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) as I want to make a few important points without detaining the Committee too long.
On Monday the Foreign Secretary said that our task was to understand the need for change. It is because of that comment that I feel it necessary to intervene now. I believe that we must pass the Bill, but if we pass the Bill and do not follow it with other similar developments it will be an example of further unwisdom.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) may remember that when I first came to the House in the 1970s I spoke against entry into the Common Market. I had advanced a similar view for some years before then and I did so because I was convinced that a Common Market built on and almost exclusively concerned with the common agricultural policy was not necessarily in the interests of Britain or of a wider Europe. I spoke against it in the House and I voted against it. When the referendum debates took place I was the most junior and humble member of the Foreign Office team and I campaigned and voted against it. However, as a democrat I had to accept that the referendum decision was significant. When the Government saw the Single European Act through Parliament, that development had a considerable effect on those of us who had taken a different view.
The logic now is that the widening of Europe is a process which must be continued. As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) pointed out on Monday, there are serious implications because, as Europe widens, the pressure upon the common agricultural policy becomes even more acute and I believe that that is a highly desirable end. It might also be desirable if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) pointed out, Europe becomes more intelligent in its approach to defence and security. That would be welcome. As you will be aware, Mr. Morris, I have probably served longer on the Council of Europe and the Western European Union than is good for me—certainly longer than any Labour Member or, I think, any Conservative Member. I have been closely involved in the developments there for a long time. In April, a planeload of Russian parliamentarians, led by Mr. Zhirinovsky, came to Strasbourg. He was clearly opposed to the European developments of which hon. Members on both sides of the House approve. In a serious speech, he called for the restoration of the Baltic states as Russian provinces. He also made a number of other serious comments. The worrying thing was that not one of the substantial number of Russian parliamentarians, most of whom were supposed to be strongly opposed to his policy, would publicly dissent from his outrageous comments.
Last week in Austria, Mr. Zhirinovsky paraded his views at the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. He attacked the west for rearming and planning to invade Russia. As history changes rapidly, the House should consider his other comment that there would soon need to be an eastern European economic bloc. He did not say a new eastern European military alliance—even Mr. Zhirinovsky recognises economic weakness when it stares him in the face. He could perceive the possibility of two Europes developing, which would be hostile to each other. Such a development would not in the best interests of our sub-continent. For that reason, the Bill should be passed, but it must be succeeded by further Bills which will widen Europe in an intelligent way or it will be of little value.
We should pass the Bill, even at the cost of treading on

those countries which value and benefit from the common agricultural policy a great deal more than we do, with only 2 per cent. of our population dependent on agriculture. The political health of Europe in the 21st century requires this measure.
I welcome the accession of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria because they are more natural allies of the British than some other member states. As Europe widens to the south, it may bring in countries warmer than Britain normally is, but less notable for their political probity than we normally are. They may be more excitable or less efficient than we normally are. We need Sweden, Norway and Finland to be with us.
I am less enthusiastic about Austria. I, and those who study Europe carefully, perceive the possible development of a German hegemony, with Germany, Hungary, the Czechs, the Slovaks and the Slovenians forming a tighter economic accord than may be good for member states, even the more recently amiable French. That development must be balanced by the addition of the Baltic countries at the earliest possible date, which would provide a balance in the European Community. Those countries would inject not merely probity, but a closer attachment to efficient administration than some people have become accustomed to in Brussels in the past 20 or 30 years. For that reason, I welcome the Bill and the clause. The Minister should understand, however, that if the Government do not seek to establish good relationships with those countries and to ensure that the Community's boundaries continue to be changed quickly, we shall not gain any advantage.
There is another anxiety. You may have been present, Mr. Morris, on the historic occasion in Strasbourg when Mr. Gorbachev spoke about the need to build the common house of Europe. I listened with passionate approval to that speech. Unlike some Conservative Members, I was on my feet when Mr. Gorbachev walked in. I was delighted, however, that everyone was on his feet when Mr. Gorbachev walked out at the end of his important speech, which was entirely consistent with the aims of the Bill.
8.15 pm
Unfortunately, both the British Government and the American Government issued statements on Mr. Gorbachev's speech earlier than they should have done—even before he had sat down. He started his speech an hour late because his journey from Paris was delayed. The comments of the British Government and the American Government after that important, visionary speech were aimed at pouring cold water on and dampening the implications of Mr. Gorbachev's speech. We treated him badly that day and the summit treated him badly when it left him exposed and vulnerable and allowed him to be overthrown.
The fact remains that Mr. Gorbachev's vision was correct. If we are to achieve the common house of Europe and, therefore, a peaceful Europe, we must ensure that the momentum created by the Bill is maintained. If it is not maintained, the Bill merely causes further difficulty and an internal hotch-potch of bureaucratic incompetence. I remain critical of the administration and the limited vision which still exist in Brussels; only through the pursuit of a wider vision shall we achieve peace in the sub-continent, which has eluded us for so long.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to be called and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I wish to


speak briefly, despite the encouragement of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—I shall resist that temptation, but, as always, I am grateful for his support. I welcome his heckling because it means that at least one is being listened to.
I did not wish to be unkind and mean to my distinguished colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke earlier. It was just that I share the informal, personal view of my other colleagues that it is bad practice—I hope that this will not annoy him—for hon. Members to speak from typescript in the House. Obviously, Ministers have to do it because they make official statements and sometimes one has to have a lot of typescript on an important speech if it involves a complex matter. Some typescripts are read word for word—although that was not the case with my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—and are written by a public relations man or the anti-Europe group, whose well-funded office is located over the road, and which can provide ample material for the young fogeys to make their—

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it possible that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is incapable of reading and that jealousy is prompting his remarks?

The Chairman: I think that the occupant of the Chair deprecates personal remarks in the Chamber and in Committee. I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) had been here long enough to recognise that courtesy is the basis of good debate.

Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Order. I repeat that courtesy is the basis of proper debate.

Mr. Dykes: I was referring to the reality of the extremely well-funded organisation across the road that provides material to the anti-European parliamentarians.

Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Madam Speaker has ruled that it is inappropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to refer to us as anti-European. It is not true, and I wish him to withdraw his remark.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little excited. I know that it is hot outside, but it need not be that hot inside. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has the Floor.

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is a genuine point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I hoped that it would be genuine.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I have the Floor at the moment. I hope that the hon. Member would always make genuine points of order. I am asking the hon. Member for Harrow, East to debate clause 1 stand part. Perhaps we can proceed on that basis.

Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to me by name. May I say that no public relations firm has ever written any part of my speeches?

The Chairman: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood was accused of not having written any of his speeches. I have listened to him many times and I know that he makes very good, short, poignant speeches.

Mr. Dykes: That is exactly what I said. I was paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his wonderfully spontaneous and moving speeches, which he makes without notes. That is the best method of all, but there is always a half-way house that involves a little bit of writing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North may prove if he catches your eye, Mr. Morris.
I think that the House will welcome not only the Bill as a whole but the clause, especially in view of the agreement of one of the new member countries. We had a very thorough Second Reading debate on Monday. We can speak only according to our own suppositions and speculation and the evidence accumulated on our visits if we get a chance to go to those countries or talk to their citizens, but I think that the other three will vote in their referendums to join. I think that I am right in saying—

Sir Teddy Taylor: They will not have ecus.

Mr. Duncan Smith: A bribe.

Mr. Dykes: In ecus, or £1,000 perhaps? I think that I am right in saying that referendums are constitutionally compulsory in all four countries. There is a great campaign in the remaining three to get a significant yes vote. I concede that the biggest question mark is over Norway. Some hon. Members may have agreed with me on Monday when I said that it is not compulsory for those countries to join. They can simply go away—no one is insisting that they join the European Union. However, I think that they would be sad about that on reflection because it would be a great opportunity missed. The European Union will gain in strength with this enlargement, as it did from the recent enlargements which brought in the southern countries. There is a great accretion of collective strength in the south and the north of Europe coming together.
I do not want to alarm my hon. Friends, but they have to accept the reality, which is that we are one member state among 12 at the moment and, I hope, 16 when this constitutional process is completed in the existing and putative member states. I have the impression that the new member states are interested not only in widening but in deepening the process as a result of their accession.

Mr. Duncan Smith: This issue has arisen many times. My hon. Friend is always prepared to elucidate, so perhaps he could clarify what he means by "deepening".

Mr. Dykes: I shall do so, subject to my not irritating the Chair by going on too long because we risk having another general Second Reading debate. I therefore relate my comments to the clause stand part debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made the most open, straightforward and honest speech on Monday in which he outlined what he thought was the future direction of the European Union. I agreed with him, although he, of course, deplores and disagrees with it. However, he was right, and I welcome it. I am delighted to be able to remind the


House, with great emphasis but without being pompous—which I hope that I never am—[Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is—

Mr. Duncan Smith: Boring but not pompous.

Mr. Dykes: The distinction between the two is a matter of ontological debate.
Colleagues must accept the reality that the European Union wants to proceed in this direction. I know that a small number of parliamentarians—unfortunately mostly gathered on the Conservative Benches—who want to halt the process and feel that they can perhaps do so in this country. I doubt that they can in view of the inexorable reality, but they cannot halt it in the other countries—not in the existing 11 member countries or in the four new members countries.
On Monday, I cited the definitive and unequivocal adherence to deeper integration evidenced in all four new member states.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I shall give way in a moment, but not for long. What I have to say is relevant to the clause stand part debate, I think.
In column 688 of Monday's Hansard, I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether he agreed with that proposition and was rather depressed to find that he did not. He did not answer my question directly. The four new members have all expressed a wish for deeper integration, and we should acknowledge that deepening and widening go together.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend will have noted the Foreign Secretary's remarks as reported at columns 685 and 687 of Hansard on Monday. He referred to
the old-fashioned idea that European construction came only by the steady centralisation of power in Brussels.
He had previously said:
Old certainties are changing; unthinking centralism is a theme of the past."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 685–7.]
My hon. Friend has been a consistent supporter of the European vision for 30-odd years—

Mr. Duncan Smith: Forty years.

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps it is 40 years. Will he tell us over what period he has seen any change in what the Foreign Secretary describes as "unthinking centralism"? Is that just another bland description of Europe to sell to those who wish to accept a particular view? Is there any objective evidence to prove that the "unthinking centralism" has been abandoned?

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend will have to put that question to the Foreign Secretary—it is up to him to answer it personally. I have never accepted that particular description of the way in which the Community has developed. It has always been decentralised in the sense that sovereign member states work together, with majority voting becoming more frequent as a result of the Maastricht arrangements—something that was long overdue and about which we were enthusiastic in terms of the single market. The only manifestation of centralism is the fact that there is one body in Brussels—the

Commission—deploying the new legislation on behalf of the member Governments, more and more at their request. There is no danger of the Commission becoming an overweening, powerful bureaucracy, unaccountable to anyone. That is merely black propaganda—the myths and nonsense that we hear about the development of the European Community.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Dykes: No, I shall not give way. If I did, the debate would become too long. In addition, I am planning to give way briefly to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North and for Stafford if they still wish to intervene.
I was asked what "deepening" means. Simply and straightforwardly, it means following the prescriptions and procedures laid down in the Maastricht treaty. I can think of no greater sublime nonsense than that we work hard—and far too long, in fact, over a ridiculously attenuated Committee stage dealing with the ratification of Maastricht—and then proceed to denounce it.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to Mr. Gorbachev. I remember his last visit when he came to an Inter-Parliamentary Union reception. He has a delicious sense of humour and said that it was marvellous to revisit the most robust democracy in Europe, but that he recognised the same faces from his previous visit in 1980, despite the intervening elections. That was an interesting reflection on our Parliament. In this mother of Parliaments—apparently the most mature of all Parliaments—we have to bear in mind that we are talking about sovereign countries working together and that they suffer no loss of sovereignty from the collective arrangements. That is the way that they want to go. In a European Union of such strength and collective maturity, which has the wisdom of many years of constitutional and political development, we cannot say that we disagree, without leaving. In the end, the other member states will say that if we disagree so fundamentally and whinge and moan so much, we should pull out. What would our reaction be, then? I see a wonderful smile on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East has also got rather carried away. We are debating clause 1 stand part, which deals with four new member countries.

Mr. Dykes: I was merely referring to that, Mr. Morris, because there are some people in those four countries who were asked, "Do you think Britain should leave?" They all said, "No, we want Britain to stay."

Sir Teddy Taylor: They want our money.

Mr. Dykes: They are all contributors to the budget. That was the original motive of the founding countries when they pleaded and begged us to join, and that process continues with the arrival of the one plus the three.
Again, it must be said that my hon. Friends have a duty to the public. They mislead the public if they misrepresent and mix up fantasy and propaganda, and pretend that it is reality and fact. Let us look at what the malevolent British newspapers, from the tabloids to the broadsheets, said about the Austrian referendum. Austria was definitely going to voteno—that is what the papers said. If there were


time, and if you were patient, Mr. Morris, I could produce the bits and pieces from the newspapers with the relevant quotations. But look what happened in the event. That is why I do not think that Norway will necessarily be such a disappointment. I hope that it will not—but that is the biggest question mark.
In the other two countries there is great enthusiasm for deepening, and for going all the way with the acquis communautaire, which they all accept solemnly. I am sorry that that feeling is not shared by my colleagues here—that phalanx of distinguished fogeys, young and old. I mean that in the most praiseworthy sense of the word; it is a colloquial description, now used by the press, of our anti-European colleagues.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: My colleagues do not want to accept—

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend said that he would give way to me.

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way now.
My hon. Friends do not want to accept that that all includes the single currency. I have never heard of any more absurd suggestion—it produces real mirth in the four new countries that are about to enter—than the idea that in the single market we shall harmonise every piece of instrumentation, all physical equipment, all the financial instruments of one kind and another, the dimensions of bricks, nuts and bolts, and all measurements and dimensions, but that there is to be one exception—the most important lubricant of all, the currency. Apparently we are to say, "No, no. Sorry, there are 16 of those." A man or woman from Mars would ask, "Have they gone crazy? Have they gone mad?" It is an absurd notion.
The four new countries accept all those things. Their opt-outs are non-existent, with the possible exception that the ability of foreigners to buy houses in one of those countries—Austria, I believe—will be limited. The Austrians may be worried about the purchasing power of the citizens of a neighbouring country. But there are no other exceptions. There are no opt-outs or hesitations of any kind. Those countries are joining enthusiastically, despite the fact that there may be geographical and agricultural difficulties in the Nordic countries, and Austria had some hesitation in respect of some of its industrial—

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: I shall in a second, very briefly.
Austria had some hesitation in respect of some of its industrial and commercial sectors.
My hon. Friends really must accept all that. The tragedy of the European election campaign for the Conservative party was the fact that fantasy, propaganda and self-induced sublime nonsense of the worst kind took over from reality when we were talking to the public.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: I have given way to my hon. Friend once already, and I am just about to give way again, so I hope that my hon. Friend will restrain himself. I hope that he will catch your eye, Dame Janet, and make his own speech in a moment. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and grateful, too, for his advice on how I should

conduct myself in the House. He has always been generous with his advice. However, the implications of what he is saying constitute a criticism not of those of us who criticise the centralising process, but of the Government for enunciating that the centralising process has been stopped. My hon. Friend agrees with me that the centralising process has not been stopped; the only difference between him and me is that I support the Government's objective, which is to try to stop it. Does he support the Government's objective of avoiding a federal Europe, which was the original aim before we set off to negotiate the Maastricht treaty ?

Mr. Dykes: I knew that it was a mistake to allow my hon. Friend to intervene because again he misunderstands.
I shall finish by expressing briefly a couple of descriptions of what I believe is the understanding of subsidiarity as it is perceived in operation in the modern world in the four new countries. It means that they too recognise the nonsense of the extended and continuing unfair attacks on the Commission in Brussels, which has had more and more to do in recent years. That has happened partly because of that pernicious institution, the ad hoc development of the European summit, which has done much harm by loading the Commission with more and more tasks.
One of the worst features of the summit was the Saturday night dinner. At least we have done away with that now, and the meetings tend to end on a Saturday afternoon, which is a great improvement. The Saturday night dinner, armed as it was with delicious clarets and other wonderful wines, induced the leaders of Governments to say to the Commission, "Do a study on that," "Do a report on this," "Let's ask the Commission to look into this or that." And away went the Commission from the summit with yet another load of work.
One of the best examples of all was a result of the intergovernmental process, not of the overweening tyrannical European Commission foisting its views on a hapless unwilling public in all the member states and on all the member Governments. That was the plan for monetary union itself, which came from an intergovernmental committee of central bank governors chaired by Jacques Delors, who was originally rather an unwilling chairman. That should be put on the record. He said, "Thank you very much for asking me, but I am rather busy. Could you find someone else?" But eventually he agreed to do it. That is the reality that we never have the chance to hear about in the British media.
My understanding of what the four countries mean by subsidiarity has been helped by the fact that I have had the opportunity of discussing such matters with various people in those countries. The modern concept goes into the three strands of effective practical subsidiarity.
First there is a whole panoply of domestic politics and legislation that does not come under the European Union at all. We all have our favourite examples. I think of domestic education policy as one of the classic examples, and the national health service is another. None of that is anything to do with the European Community. That is one sense of subsidiarity, whereby the nation states have plenty in their own terrain and territory that does not come into the European panoply of legislation or directives.
The second strand is that which was originally designed at the request of the member Governments. I emphasise the fact that that is the basis on which all such things are done.


The sovereign member Governments constantly ask the Commission to produce more legislation on this, that and the other—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. What has that to do with clause 1?

Mr. Dykes: I am just about to explain to you, Dame Janet, to your satisfaction I hope, that that is directly relevant to clause 1, concerning how the Swedes and the other countries that will enter have recently thought about such matters.
We have the Brussels-produced legislation on behalf of the sovereign member Governments. In the four countries that will operate in the same way. According to the treaty of accession they accept all those procedures, whereby there is then a devolution back to the member state on how that legislation is to be constructed.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way very briefly?

Mr. Dykes: No, I shall not give way now, because I do not want speak for too long.
We see already that the stream of legislative instruments coming from the Commission week by week—we deal with them in our European Select Committee—is now about one third of the size that it was a while ago. That is because the single market legislation is all finished. That is why there is a sudden drop, even apart from the Commission's willingness to say that it would legislate only in important areas in future, so long as the member Governments did not load it with additional tasks found within the treaties—the nearest thing that the European Union has to a constitution.
The third area is when Commission legislation is withdrawn and left completely to the member state. If there were a project on the table the Commission would drop it, or it would not proceed with a new one if one had not yet been devised.
Everybody would welcome those three strands and say that that was the modern expression of subsidiarity for the four new member states. We do not have the chance to read the media of those countries in great detail—by definition, we are too busy—but I have not noticed in any of the debates on accession in any of the countries any hesitation about the concept of practical subsidiarity.
So what is the propaganda and the anxiety in this country, other than self-induced, self-imagined fantasy of the worst kind, which I think is grossly misleading and unhelpful to the British public? It causes a vacuum of enthusiasm and great hesitation about our membership of the European Union, which is not found in other countries—

Mr. Jenkin: So it is just us?

Mr. Dykes: —except, of course, the manifestations of the recession—

Mr. Wilkinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dykes: If people are unemployed, how can they be enthusiastic about the development of any union, let alone a European Union, which is too vast and too great to grasp—[Interruption.] The fact that I am being heckled by some

of my colleagues shows that what I am saying is perfectly correct, and acceptable in other forums. Otherwise my hon. Friends would not be heckling me.
My conclusion is that when those four countries are in the Union, which I hope will have happened by the end of this year, we shall see—

Sir Teddy Taylor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dykes: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so unhappy about that. We shall see an intensification of the deepening which strikes such terror into his heart and alarms him, because he knows that that is the reality, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said on Monday. [Interruption]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is not a private conversation; it is a debate.

Dr. Godman: There is considerable substance in the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that the processes of widening and deepening are not mutually exclusive.
In response to an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made disparaging comments about the European Court of Justice. I should have thought that, with the accession of the four countries, if all four join—I have much greater concerns about the anxieties felt by many Norwegian people than the hon. Member for Harrow, Fast has—the European Court of Justice, despite the disparaging remarks of the hon. Member for Southend, East, will be the supreme court, in which 17 legal systems will be concerned. There will be the Scottish legal system, the English and Welsh legal system, and others. The court's decision-making almost inevitably ensures a deeper degree of integration of the 16.
We can see what power the court has in terms of domestic legislation. At this very moment, the Government have a case at the European Court of Justice which relates to the payment of invalidity benefit. I have no doubt that if Norway becomes a member, the Norwegian Government and perhaps the others too will one day find themselves at that court in Luxembourg. There is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Member for Harrow, East says.
The Minister has been something of a bystander in this debate. I should like to ask him a couple of questions. It is surely the case that the countries coming into the European Union have to honour certain obligations. My question for the Minister will, I am sure, be picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) if he catches your eye, Dame Janet.
What is the position concerning the activities of the Norwegian whaling industry once Norway becomes a fully integrated member of the European Union? I believe that Norway has some flexibility in terms of its membership of the European Economic Area. Is it the case that the rules concerning that maritime activity are much tougher? Can the Minister state that, when Norway becomes a member, it will have to cease forthwith this disgraceful maritime activity?
That question was put to me by a group of schoolchildren in my constituency. I awarded them 10 out of 10 for their perceptiveness in asking such a question. One of them said, "Ah, Dr. Godman. The Norwegians will have to stop hunting these whales when they become


members of the European Economic Community." It is a little old-fashioned for a 14-year-old to refer 10 the European Union as the European Economic Community. However, the question is important. As a member of the European Union, Norway may have to honour certain obligations. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that is one of them.
I return to the speech by the hon. Member for Harrow, East. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), he seems to be utterly confident that the Norwegian people will say yes in the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth said that the people living in and around Oslo will out-vote the people living in the northern Norwegian fishing communities. I am not so sure that that can be safely predicted.
My family have long experience of working with Norwegian fishermen and their communities. When my father was injured while fishing off northern Norway, he received hospital treatment in Vardoe. More recently, when a brother of mine was injured on his trawler, he was taken by helicopter to a hospital in Bodo. Our links with the Norwegian fishing communities are fairly strong.
8.45 pm
There is no point in dismissing these people's anxieties. They have deep-seated fears that their communities could be fatally harmed by the imposition of the common fisheries policy. Those communities are part and parcel of the Norwegian culture, as acknowledged by the metropolitan types down in Oslo. There is concern, and the Norwegian Government will have to pay heed to it. In Norway, there may well be another vote—perhaps by a narrow margin—against joining the Union, largely because this important industry and its communities are threatened.
Some people say that they do not trust the Norwegians. The ones I do not trust are the Spanish fishing operators. As was the case with the fishermen from the former USSR, the Spanish fishermen will sweep the seas clean. They will clean out grounds and then move away. The Norwegians cannot afford to clean out their grounds; that is why they have such tough policing regulations for those who fish in their waters.
I have a question for the Minister about the obligations that the Norwegians will have to honour. I refer to what the Foreign Secretary said on Monday, when I was unable to persuade him to give way:
Our fishermen will have new opportunities in Norwegian waters from 1997 onwards."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 694.]
What are the new opportunities? If the Minister cannot give me an answer this evening, I hope that he will be his usual courteous self and will write to me. If new opportunities will be offered to fishermen from United Kingdom fishing ports, presumably they will have to be offered to the Spanish as well, although their history of fishing in Norwegian waters is much more sparse than our long tradition of fishing in Norwegian fishing grounds.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend referred in relation to whaling to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). If the whaling matter is resolved by a reduction or an elimination of whaling, which it could be, and if the threat of Spanish fishing becomes a reality, is it not true that a recourse to agriculture, which may be the alternative in the northern parts of Norway, would be limited by the imposition of the

common agricultural policy? The threat may be threefold, even if one course of action may gain some sympathy from the British public.

Dr. Godman: What my hon. Friend says makes sound sense. I am not a lawyer, but, in my view, the whaling question will finish up in Luxembourg. I believe that it will go to the European Court of Justice. I hope that, if the Norwegian Government refuse to stop whaling on accession—if the Norwegian people agree to accession—the European Commission will take the Norwegian Government to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Council of Europe considered the matter a few months ago, Norwegian whaling policy met with the approval of the assembly? Labour Members voted against it, but, unfortunately, the Liberal and Conservative votes were cast in favour of Norway's whaling policy. That may well have some influence to bear on the diplomatic direction pursued by the British Government, and possibly that of other member states.

Dr. Godman: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. However, the European Commission—another powerful, centralising institution—will have its power enhanced by a wider membership.
There is another point to consider about fishing and the Norwegians with regard to their tough policing regime, which I mentioned earlier. We shall see some fun and games when the Spanish try their tricks in Norwegian waters—the kind of tricks that we are used to on the west coast of Scotland and that the fishermen are used to in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, because the Norwegians will hit the Spanish for six if they try their tricks. I hope that the Norwegians will be supported by the European Commission in that regard.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, under directive 92/43, appendix v, I think, whaling will be totally illegal if Norway joins the European Community. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the appropriate question to ask the Government is whether they would go for a derogation in the event of Norway joining? The law is abundantly clear: the directive could not be clearer. The only question is whether the British Government or others will or will not agree to a derogation.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to be aided and abetted by the hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, when my wife was a social worker in his constituency in deepest Glasgow, she thought that he was a first-class constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure that he does the same job in Southend.
He is absolutely right. What is the Government's position if those circumstances arise? For what it is worth, my view is that the European Commission will intervene correctly by taking the Norwegian Government to the European Court of Justice. However, given the backlog of cases from which that court suffers, a decision would not be reached for at least two years. Nevertheless, that institution, that supreme court, will be the final arbiter and not the Council of Ministers—not derogation, but that remarkable supreme court, which is aiding and abetting the deepening of the Community.
May I ask the Minister another question, which also relates to the Norwegians' obligations when they take on membership of the Community. We in Scotland are deeply


concerned about the harm inflicted on our salmon farming industry by the deliberate dumping of farmed salmon into markets in what we now call the European Union. The Minister knows about the issue, as I think that I have mentioned it to him before, and I have certainly mentioned it to his right hon. and hon. Friends.
I believe that, under the terms of the treaty, certain restrictions are placed on Norway concerning the European Economic Area, but am I right in thinking that, once Norway becomes a fully fledged member of the European Union, the regulations governing such exports, sold at such low prices, will be much tougher, and that the Norwegians will find that it is a much stricter regime once they are completely through the gate and are a full member of the European Union?
I return to the Foreign Secretary's promise of more opportunities for our fishermen in Norwegian waters following the accession of Norway. What does that mean? Does it mean that access restrictions will be eased, and that more of our fishing vessels from the east coasts of England and Scotland will be able to fish Norwegian waters, or does it simply mean that a certain number of vessels will be allowed to continue to fish in those waters?
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Harrow, East said about the deepening and the widening of the Community. Those processes are combined. We are moving, if not towards a federal Europe in the next few years, certainly towards one which is increasingly centralised.
I deeply regret the Government's interpretation of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which deals with the application of subsidiarity. I should like to see a much greater devolution of political decision-making to a Parliament in Scotland—and, indeed, to local authorities throughout the whole of the so-called United Kingdom.
The scrutiny of European legislation by the four countries' elected representatives in Strasbourg and in their own national Parliaments will bring added democracy to what is at the moment something of a ramshackle edifice, especially when we think of all the fiddling which goes on in some countries and of the misappropriation of structural and other funds, which occurs on a daily basis elsewhere in the so-called European Union.

Mr. Wilkinson: In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), as so often on European affairs, was a veritable Valiant for Truth. He has sought to look behind the seven short lines of the clause and to come to the heart of matter. It is, as he explained, essentially financial; I shall return to it later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) proved himself, as in his youth, a good sapper and miner, inasmuch as he undermined the Government's position on the question of qualified majority voting after the putative accession of the four applicant countries—particularly as we do not, of course, know whether they will all join. One wonders whether we ought to be passing this legislation in advance of their Parliaments' ratification and the affirmative resolution of their people in a referendum, but that is by the by.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to fishing and whaling, which are so important to Norway. That would take us into tempestuous waters and I shall not take such a course, except to say that

it has been our experience in the United Kingdom—I hope that our Norwegian friends will examine our experience closely—that, since we joined the European Community, there has been a severe depradation of fishing resources around our coasts. Entire fishing communities have gone to the wall. I trust that the people of Norway will think extremely carefully about it. I am sure they will.
9 pm
I return to the financial matter to which I alluded earlier. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about the "practical consequences of enlargement". He said:
The fact that four relatively well-off countries will be coming into the European Union will reduce the amount that other countries, including Britain, will need to contribute to the budget. We expect our British contribution to be some £300 million sterling less over the first six years of accession than it would otherwise have been."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 24.6, c. 691.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East later sought clarification of that hoped-for reduction in our expenditure which would be consequent upon the accession of the four applicant countries.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should have been much more open with the House, but we cannot really expect that from Foreign Secretaries. Obfuscation is the name of the game when it comes to matters European, and all Foreign Secretaries play it the same.
My right hon. Friend said that he would disclose to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), in response to the inquiry of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the likely increase of the budget for the United Kingdom for 1995. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is rightly smiling, and I applaud him for his researches into these matters. He said that an extra £2,000 million of additional expenditure was likely to be incurred by the United Kingdom in 1995.
Against that background, a saving of £300 million over six years is pretty small beer. I hope and ask that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not take for granted everything that is said about the consequences of enlargement. Our experience has consistently been that of being duped over the process of European integration.
With the accession of the four applicant countries, if four join, the Community will certainly be wider, but I cannot see that it will be a more harmonious Community. Existing tensions will almost certainly run deeper, especially the tension between the relatively rich and prosperous north and the poorer south.
I doubt whether countries such as Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland will be glad to continue to pay huge sums—Austria, Sweden and Norway will, like ourselves, be net contributors—to meet the cost of the objective of economic convergence. Will they be happy with that for very long?
The objective of economic convergence will itself be made less realisable when four additional, disparate and different economies come into the Community. They have their own particularities. After the accession of the four applicant countries, the idea of bringing in the Visegrad three—Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary—will almost certainly be unrealisable. Perhaps that should be made clear now.
I hope that we do not welcome the accession without comprehending that, even with friendly countries which


have long been well disposed towards the United Kingdom, such as the applicant four, not all will be well in the European Union.
I remind the Committee that it was the run on the Finnish currency, strangely enough, which presaged the ultimate break-up of the exchange rate mechanism and our withdrawal from it. Let us take note of the difficulties we experienced when we joined the Community. I am sure that the four applicant countries will experience difficulties at least as great. I suspect that, before long, tensions within the Community as currently designed will be too great for it to remain a union for very long.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and be extremely brief. I acknowledge from the outset that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who contributed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to the Second Reading debate on Monday, made clear our unambiguous support for the accession—as we hope—of the four new countries to the extended or expanded European Union in due course.
After observing the continuing debate or, should I say, constructive discussions in the Conservative party, it is clear that the Bill is part of a triumvirate of important European measures which will come before the House in the remainder of this Parliament—assuming that :it goes something like its full length. After Maastricht and this Bill, there will be the own resources Bill which promises to be more electorally divisive in the House in terms of the Division Lobbies. The third part of the triumvirate will be the outcome of the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
Having listened to the ongoing debate between the Conservative Member representing the European Movement and his colleague representing some other kind of movement, not in itself unconnected with Europe, but not connected to it in the way that the European Movement is, it is interesting to note that if that represents unanimity in terms of everyone supporting the accession, one hates to think what it will be like when the Conservative party returns to genuine and authentic division when it comes to voting in the House on own resources and perhaps, who knows, on the outcome of the IGC.
While I want to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who, like me, speaks from a Scottish perspective on one aspect of the Bill, I share the general welcome to the four countries. In many ways, they are potential allies in the decision making that lies ahead. They are also economically potential allies.
I hope that the course of the remaining referendums has not been too badly blown to one side or undermined from the outset by what I consider to be the quite farcical "Grand old Duke of York" performance over qualified majority voting and the signals that sent to the electorates and the difficulties it created for some parties in the other member states.
I listened with interest to a Labour Member who referred earlier to his optimism that there would be a Social Democratic Government in Sweden after the general election there towards the end of the year. On the day that the qualified majority voting row was going on, it was my pleasure to join a Conservative Member at lunch with a visiting Swedish politician who would certainly have Cabinet rank in that Government if it were to come to power.
That Swedish politician was aghast because the Swedish Social Democrats were having to take a difficult decision in opposition, similar to what happened on occasions in this House in respect of Maastricht, when an unpopular incumbent Government were trying to put through an important measure. The Opposition party in Sweden had to play off what it believed to be the right decision for Sweden's overall benefit against what was perhaps the easier, tactical electoral decision for its benefit in the forthcoming period. It felt disappointed and disheartened that the British Government's actions over QMV were making its dilemma more acute. That may not cause angst among those who would welcome Sweden saying no to accession, but we must note that what we say and what is done in one member state inevitably has a knock-on effect in others.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow rightly referred to salmon dumping. I have raised that subject before with the Minister and, following one of our exchanges, he wrote to me about it. I want to stress that, as and when Norwegian accession is achieved, I hope that the European Commission will be able to take a more active policing role under the terms of the single market which, hitherto, it has been unwilling or unable to take, in respect of the imbalance in the market price which Norwegian over-production and the loading of that over-production on other member states within the European single market has thus far created. I hope that the Minister can give some sign that, if the Norwegian accession goes ahead, we as a nation state within the European Union will press for that improvement at Commission level.
Secondly, there is a happier side of the existing market relations between our country and Norway: the oil sector—not least the oil-related fabrication sector where significant progress has been made by United Kingdom firms. Of particular importance to the Scottish economy, but also elsewhere in the United Kingdom economy, is the fact that, in a fallow period in the UK market, we have been winning contracts that have been available from the Norwegian sector. We welcome that—the issue of the single market and the level playing field is equally applicable in this sector.
I hope that if Norwegian accession is achieved, the Government will seek to use the good will that exists between Norway and Britain to form an axis to ensure that other member states over which we harbour continuing doubts about the level state of their playing fields—Italy and Spain are two countries that come to mind immediately—present us with genuine, fair competition with no hidden subsidies. Those are two practical points.
I think that all of us who welcome the accessions do so in the right frame of mind. That is not to say that the accessions will solve all the problems. Every opportunity that comes before the European Union opens up new problems. These accessions will be exactly the same. I hope that the Minister will comment on the two specific points that another Opposition Member and I have raised or will write in more detail later.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Like the previous two speakers, I shall keep my comments brief. Before I speak about clause 1, I shall give the House a reminder of the long-held links between Norway and Denmark. I have a personal link as, during the last war, my father commanded the Norwegian and Danish wing in 1942. That should stand as a significant reminder to hon. Members of our long and significant


connection with those two countries, many of whose citizens died to ensure that Britain stayed free of the oppression threatening us and Norway and Denmark.
Clause 1 winds in the whole of the European Communities Act 1972 with the accession treaty. Like all foreign treaties, it is a curate's egg—good in parts. The good parts may just outweigh the bad. The treaty and the clause get my support. It is important to discuss some of the issues and problems that will arise from the clause, which is the Bill's main clause.
In his opening remarks on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that Europe had been juddering in the past few years as a result of the ending of the cold war. He used the analogy of geographic plates sliding against each other and moving constantly in the process. I understand that analogy and partly accept it, but I take slight issue with it. We need to take a much broader historical perspective.
In Europe, we are seeing a return to instincts and traditions that we thought had, in many senses, long since died. The accession treaty that brings in those countries of Scandinavia could never have happened before the cold war, which has been the key. For 40 years, that blanket of oppression, which defined two sides so clearly, also split Scandinavia. Finland was locked into a position with Russia. That was reasonable—big brother sitting next to it. Sweden was neutral for the same reason, although that neutrality went far further back.
9.15 pm
But that 40 years was not part of a natural process. It was an historical abberation. With the cold war lifted, we are now seeing a range of changes taking place across Europe which perhaps relate much more to the period before the second world war than to the period of the cold war. The unification of Germany has taken place. Germany is growing logically in strength and power to a dominant economic position at the heart of Europe. The position of the worried eastern nations as they look towards Germany and Russia is similar historically to their pre-second world war position. The position of the countries that we believe will come into the European Union is changing. They are having to look in different directions as a result of the collapse of the cold war.
Underneath all that, the Europe of the European Communities Act 1972, to which the clause refers, developed under the blanket of the cold war. Many views were allowed to develop in isolation from the real world. Thoughts and ideas about the drive to ever-closer union, leading logically to some form of central government or federal state, might have seemed logical to states that had come out of the fear of the second world war under the oppression of the cold war, but, with the end of the cold war, it is time to reconsider the way in which these things will develop.
The treaty of accession is the first act of the European Community since the cold war. Maastricht was a treaty of the cold war. It was about the cold war and the fears of the cold war. It was not about the changes post the cold war—the new national instincts that are re-emerging and the views of different countries, not least the four referred to in the treaty of accession.
Looking forward, the accession treaty is the first opportunity that we have to hold a magnifying glass to the

Community and the Union that we have created, which is very much a product of the cold war, and to try to understand how best it can change and what is going to happen. We should not be under any illusion about the countries that are about to come in. Many of them are long-term friends and many of them are democratic and adhere to the instinctive principles that Britain has represented over many hundreds of years, but they also bring with them certain aspects that will not be particularly to our liking. They already carry much higher agricultural subsidies than the common agricultural policy represents in Europe. They have much higher social costs than obtain in the countries of Europe.
We watch time and again as my right hon. and hon. Friends go across to the Council of Ministers and argue about matters connected with social policy and express their fears about the imposition of the extra burdens of social costs which would shackle industry and make us less and less competitive both here in Britain and in other countries of Europe.
Article 118 and others deal with the social matters that many of us believe should no longer be in the treaty and should be reconsidered. It is time that they were re-examined. When we consider those articles and understand what my right hon. and hon. Friends are discussing, we must have at the back of our minds an awareness that when those countries arrive they will not necessarily be our partners in discussions on these matters that we oppose. These matters cause us the greatest concern—the imposition of social costs. I suspect that they will not be with us in opposing those. It is more likely that they will be with those who seek greater imposition. There may be some differences of opinion on that, but we need to be aware that that is likely to be the case.
The largest part of the debate in Europe is about the common agricultural policy. The countries that are about to come in carry with them a much higher burden of subsidy than the CAP represents. They would have to take a drop to reach the CAP. Here we are examining the iniquities of the CAP. Sixty per cent. of the budget goes to bureaucrats and into food mountains and, of course, massively into fraud and only 40 per cent., if any, reaches the farmers.
We all say how dreadful it is, and that we must do something to reform it. In fact, many of us now have the view that much of the common agricultural policy should be repatriated to the nations comprising the European Community. The Government should be saying that more strongly.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to make their position clear on the matter so that we can demonstrate to those countries coming in as a result of this accession treaty that we are seeking a full reform of the CAP. It is not enough for the levels that exist at the moment to be dropped—fraud and bureaucracy must go. There can be only one way do that, and that is by repatriation. The treaty gives us the opportunity to open the arguments again in the run-up to 1996.
Although the nations joining the Union will be independent-minded—that is to be welcomed, and perhaps they will be far less inclined to go down the road of federalism—there are other matters which will cause us some problems and which need to be looked at. I would point my hon. and right hon. Friends towards the position of institutional reform.
When the countries come in, they will bring with them—logically enough—a requirement to have more


Commissioners, and the number will go up to about 21. We may think that the system is unwieldy and difficult now, and that it is of a centralising tendency which brings more power to the Commission. However, 21 Commissioners will be more likely than not to ask for even more briefs to keep them busy.
The treaty gives us an ideal opportunity to go forward to 1996 from the springboard of this excellent beginning to reform the institutions. We must reduce the number of Commissioners. That must be a logical position for the Government to place before themselves for 1996, and this treaty gives us an excellent opportunity to do just that. To reflect the nature of what we believe in—a Europe of nation states—decisions must be taken more and more at the intergovernmental level. They should be manipulated far less; we must not have too many Commissioners.
Perhaps a good thing in the treaty is that it gives us an opportunity to look ahead to the reform of the institutions and of the CAP, and to start opening the arguments that we thought we had locked away following the Maastricht debate. There are things which must be done if we believe in looking ahead from the cold war. That will give us the opportunity to make the Community a workable one of nation states, rather than a heavily centralised, bureaucratic monolith which will collapse under the weight of its own failings.
I would also urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept that the treaty and the clause make up only the first of two stages of enlargement. If they stand by themselves, there will be failure. But if we accept that this is only a hand's grasp away from enlargement into the east, the Government can feel rightly pleased that we have sought to enlarge the Community. We will have sought not to destroy the Community, but to make it a community of nation states that works.
I am reminded that one of the directorates-general—either DG XII or XV—produced a document that talked about opening the markets immediately to the eastern countries, such as Poland and the Czech and Slovak republics, so that we could get cheaper agricultural produce, steel and iron. That would benefit us and we would be able to feed people at a cheaper rate and get the materials that would enable our manufacturing industries to compete with places outside Europe. We need cheaper raw materials and those places could have provided them. In return, we would provide them with the cash to continue to develop their own industries.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He is advocating a wider and freer market over a wider area, perhaps on a worldwide level.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a famous British exporter, which I will not name, has said that it cannot get iron castings manufactured in this country and has to get them from Turkey instead? Does he consider that good for our manufacturing industry? Should there not be a limit to the freedom of markets, in the European Community and across the world?

Mr. Duncan Smith: Of course it is difficult to procure iron castings in this country if none are produced here. For those who used to produce them here, that is of course a major problem. However, the point is that there must be free movement of capital and goods throughout the world

if third world nations are to have the chance to develop, and hence to make the money with which to buy the goods that we want to sell them. That is the logic of it.
If, however, we stand in the middle and block free movement—we are doing it to the eastern bloc countries now—it will be no good lecturing poorer countries about democracy and all the other wonderful things that we believe they should enjoy if we take away from them the one thing that will sustain them through the pain of all the economic changes to come. We must not take away their chance to make the money that they need. They have things to sell us, and it is not right that we should stop them exporting those things to us on the ground that we want to protect our industries. Our industries will benefit in the short and the long term from a commitment by us to trade.
I accept that there may be some limitations of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. They are what GATT dealt with, and they are why we need to move further along the lines of GATT.
Without going a stage further, what we are enacting today will prove an unmitigated failure. It is not enough to squeeze in only the countries that can afford the entry ticket and to ignore all the other countries which need us and which we in return need for our trade. Trading with them will do all our industries a power of good.
I have tremendous reservations about what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to as "deepening". Parts of this treaty include large elements of that deepening process; but I am prepared on balance to accept that the treaty will work to our benefit provided that we follow it up with the second stage: a wider Community. We must fight hard to stop the imposition of more social costs and to reform the CAP and the Union's institutions as we approach 1996. We must ensure that those institutions take account of a Europe of nation states of the kind in which the Government so rightly believe. It is what we must press for.

Mr. Tony Banks: I oppose Norway's accession to the European Union, and not because I am anti-Norwegian. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) about our close links with Norway—links going back hundreds of years—although the Norwegians did come here originally as a form of early lager louts, stamping all over the good Celtic people up north. More felicitously, we have worked together and fought together in the recent past. It is, of course, not just a question of the Norwegians who died in the campaign to liberate Europe. A large number of British people died in the campaign to liberate Norway.
Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman's point about our historic links with Norway, which is why I speak more in sorrow than in anger about Norway this evening. I have spoken out against it consistently because of its policy of slaughtering minke whales, in defiance of the International Whaling Commission and the great weight of public feeling in this country and the rest of the European Union.
The Norwegians are behaving quite unacceptably, which is why I take this opportunity to vent my feelings and express my protest in the only way I can. The Norwegian Government have licensed 30 vessels to kill 301 minke whales this summer. Those of us who are concerned for the future of this great marine mammal are grateful for the activities of organisations such as Greenpeace. A great many brave people from this country,


Norway and around the world are at this very moment on the high seas trying to prevent Norwegian whalers from slaughtering the whales.
The Greenpeace ship Sirius has been attempting to prevent the Norwegian whaler Senet from slaughtering whales. For their pains, apart from being threatened by the Norwegian whalers, the crew have been arrested by the Norwegian coastguards in international waters. Their boat has been seized and they have been arrested.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. I should like to know what he is doing on behalf of the British Government to protest to the Norwegians about their behaviour in international waters and to find out how many Greenpeace campaigners are United Kingdom citizens who are entitled to the protection of the British Government, particularly when they are trying to prevent the Norwegians from breaking international law and agreements. That is why I am asking the Minister what investigations he has made.
9.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked what the Government were doing in terms of protesting to the Norwegians about their whaling campaign, as did the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is a great campaigner for animal welfare, particularly in terms of trying to prevent the slaughter of whales.
What sort of deal, if any, has been done? Is it possible within the context of the accession treaty for any deal to be done? The word used was "derogation". Have the Norwegians been able to get an opt-out? Is there an opt-out in the rules regarding non-whaling within European Union waters? Have the Norwegians been successful in getting an opt-out from that requirement? Is that possible? I should be most grateful if the Minister would give me those responses, as a number of us on both sides of the House are concerned.
The motor vessel Sirius—the Greenpeace ship—caught a Norwegian whaler shooting a harpooned whale in the North sea. That makes nonsense of the idea that somehow a whale can be slaughtered with a harpoon. There is no humane way of killing a whale.
When the Norwegians argued that we, the British, kill cattle, I remember the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), making the famous point that we do not shoot a harpoon into a heifer and chase it through five fields trying to kill it. That is precisely the point. There is no humane way of killing a whale.
I watched some footage of the Norwegians trying to electrocute a harpooned whale and shoot it with a gun. It is absurd and obscene and should not be allowed by any civilised nation. We should make sure that our protest goes out as strongly and volubly as possible from the House to our allies and close friends the Norwegians.
The Norwegians killed 226 whales in 1993 and at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Mexico recently the Norwegian estimate of the north-east Atlantic minke whale population was seriously challenged by the IWC's scientific committee. The north-east Atlantic minke whale was protected by the IWC in 1985 because of its seriously depleted numbers, the population having been

reduced to less than half its original size because of the activities of Norwegian whalers, with some help from the Russians and the Icelandics.
Now that we have been able to build up the population of minke whales, the people who caused them to be depleted say that the population is sufficient to resume some form of slaughter.
The Norwegians started by calling it scientific whaling, which was one way of getting round the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. Now they are going for limited commercial whaling.
The Norwegians do not need to sustain whaling for their economic prosperity. They have one of the highest per capita incomes on earth. Norway is a very rich country. If it were a small agricultural fishing community, I might have some sympathy with its predicament, but the Norwegians have no economic justification for doing what they are doing.
Much of that whale meat is exported to Japan. The Japanese are rather like the Norwegians in terms of their totally oblivious attitude to world opinion. They feel that they can kill anything because it belongs to them.
Whales do not belong to the Norwegians. No one harvests whales; there are no whale fish farms. Indeed, as we know, the whale is not a fish—but try to convince the Japanese of that. When they are attacked for whaling, they say that the meat-eating north is imposing itself in a racist way on the fish-eating culture of Japan. I must point out to the Japanese that, for all their scientific whaling, they still have not worked out that the whale is not a fish but a mammal—a mammal that can feel the pain of a harpoon shooting through it, or electrodes pushing electricity through it. Whales can feel bullets. Moreover, they have a family system and a community that may be something like ours. They sense; they feel; they understand.
The Norwegians still believe that they have the right to kill whales. They do not have that right. The whales belong to all of us. They are international. They do not live in Norway; they migrate, and come to our waters as well. They belong to us as much as they belong to the Norwegians, and the Norwegians have no right to slaughter them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)—who leads the Opposition's Council of Europe delegation—and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember the occasion when Mrs. Brundtland addressed the Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am proud to be a member. She paraded her green credentials—Mrs. Brundtland, who goes to the United Nations and says, "What a wonderful green socialist I am." I can only say that I am ashamed that Mrs. Brundtland should even presume to describe herself as a socialist. I do not recognise her as a socialist; I recognise her as a murderer, who is slaughtering a creature that is capable of comprehension which in many ways resembles that of human beings.
I realise that I am becoming very emotional, Dame Janet. I am not tired and emotional; I am just emotional, because this is an emotional subject about which I feel strongly. I believe that my feelings may be shared by the great majority of our citizens, and it is on their behalf that I make my protest about the activities of the Norwegians. This has been an all-party effort: there has been a good deal of cross-party support. We have supported the British Government in their stand at the IWC. We have supported Ministers who have gone there and spoken for the British


people, protesting about whaling. We shall continue to support the Government, as long as they support the whales and represent the feelings that the people of this country have expressed.
I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my questions, and will realise that there are strong feelings about this subject—not only on my part, but throughout the House.

Mr. Cash: I believe that the question at the heart of the debate is, "Will the Bill benefit the United Kingdom, and will it involve Germany?" That is the ace question that has lain at the heart of the European Community since 1945. Will the Bill improve or retard our ability to achieve our objective?
An article in The Spectator recently quoted something that Bismarck said in 1877. He described his diplomatic goals thus:
to create a situation in which all powers other than France need us, and are prevented as much as possible from building coalitions against us because of their relationships to one another.
The question is, will the treaty that is now part and parcel of the Maastricht arrangements enable us both to widen the European Community and to ensure that we do not deepen it? We are told that, through the treaty, we will widen it; but I fear that it will be deepened as well. The two processes run together because of the legal framework created by the Maastricht treaty.
In fact, the accumulation of power that will accrue as a result of enlargement and the accession of the four new countries—given the trade balances that operate throughout the European Community in favour of Germany—will enhance its power. The voting structure will ensure that there is a greater opportunity for those alliances to build up in favour of the matters that the Germans want to push through. I shall not today go through the extended list of areas in which the Germans have managed to accumulate greater power. However, it started with the speech on the Oder-Neisse line and, more recently, there has been the beef ban. There is a range of matters including the interest rate question, the way in which they behaved over the EMS and the recognition of Croatia. All those issues will be made much more difficult if the consequences of the Bill in terms of the accretion of the voting power of countries dependent on Germany results in their voting with Germany.
The most recent figures on the subject in the "Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook" of 1993, which describes trade with Germany throughout Europe, including trade with the four applicant countries, show that, for Austria, the share of the total of exports to Germany is 39.8 per cent. The figure in respect of imports from Germany is 42.9 per cent. The effect of that is that the two countries are totally intertwined, and there is no reasonable prospect that the Austrian Government will at any time have the degree of independence that is claimed for them by those who say that the enlargement of the Community will enable Austria to go its own way as a separate nation state. I think that it will be bound up in an undesirable way. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that that is the direction in which things will go.
The figures for Norway are different. The figure for exports is 13 per cent; the figure for imports is 14 per cent. For Sweden, the figures are 15 per cent. and 18 per cent. respectively. There is an increasing indication, borne out within the Community as it stands under Maastricht, of an

unhealthy over-dependence of the other countries upon Germany. That will affect the voting structure and that is why qualified majority voting, which we discussed in the House some months ago, is so important.
It is precisely for that reason that it is essential that we reconsider the whole of the Maastricht negotiation and that the entire process back to the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act is re-evaluated at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. That re-evaluation must include the relationship that we have with the four applicant countries.
I welcome their involvement in the enlargement process. My fear is that because it is based on Maastricht as well—Maastricht is about government rather than trade—the implications of the voting structure will tend to enhance the intrinsic power of Germany at the expense of the rest of Europe. That is contrary to what I believe was intended by the other members, although not by Germany.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. and, on this occasion, learned Friend. I should like his legal advice before my hon. Friend the Minister begins his speech. My hon. Friend referred to qualified majority voting. If one of the applicant nations does not join the European Union, article 2(2) of the treaty comes into effect. That article says:
The Council of the European Union, acting unanimously, shall decide immediately upon such adjustments as have become indispensable.
The threshold for qualified majority voting is 64. If the Government took the view that it was not indispensable to reduce that threshold, would they be able to make that point stick?

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It was the reason why I tabled an amendment, which was not selected—and I make no criticism of that decision. The amendment highlighted the fact that, if all the countries did not ratify the proposal through referendums, according to the constitutional requirements envisaged in article 2 of the treaty, the voting structure would be distorted. My hon. Friend makes a valid point and his contribution was a valuable one.
Although I have the greatest sympathy with many of the arguments on whaling and other matters that were advanced by some hon. Members, this issue is much more important than it seems. This is not just any old accession treaty: it enhances and increases the centralising process of the Maastricht treaty because it is based on it.
My comments on the relationship between the acceding countries and Germany were not hostile towards Germany. That is not the point. The key question is whether the measure will create an imbalance in favour of Germany as compared with the other member states. We are talking about what is called the European Union or the European Community. If it is to be a fair and proper arrangement, it must be balanced and it must not automatically lead to one or two countries enjoying superdomination over the others. The original treaty of Rome and all that went with it in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was designed to avoid such an occurrence.
In May 1953, Jean Monnet said that, if Germany were to obtain a degree of industrial domination in Europe, which he could not foresee but which has happened, the concept of the European Community that he had in mind would disintegrate. That is part of the problem. With great


respect to my friends in the United States of America, the situation was not enhanced by Mr. Clinton's recent speech. With deep regret, I say that he has failed to understand the nature not only of the susceptibilities of the people of Europe but of the intrinsic balance of power that prevails even today, although some people may pretend that it does not.
I should also like to quote a great statesman, Bismarck. Some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members may be surprised by that, but those people who know the difference between the Bismarckians and the Nazis would understand that he knew what he was talking about when he said:
I have always found the word Europe on the lips of those politicians who wanted something from other Powers which they dared not demand in their own names".
Instead of blood and iron, we now have pen and rules. The four applicant countries may yet discover that it is not as easy to join the European Community as they had originally hoped.
In the past few days, I have received a letter from a 13-year-old constituent of mine. It states:
We, as a nation, have just remembered D-Day and all the lives that were lost because we didn't want anyone else saying what our country should do. Why did we bother if it was all going to be changed anyway?
The girl also sent me the list of signatories that she had collected. I read that letter with some concern because it is 50 years to the day since my father was killed in the war and won the Military Cross fighting in Normandy for the liberation of Europe. Many other people did the same. Many Germans do not want that to happen again and they have honest intentions; others, however, have another agenda.
I fear that the effects of the treaty and the accumulation of evidence of the assertiveness of Germany is not in the German interest. The Norwegians know and understand that only too well; the Austrians know and understand it; and so do the Finns from their relationship with Russia. I do not have time now to go into the Russo-German treaty, but I am sure that the Finns will be watching it with grave concern. The same is true of the Swedes.
It would be easy for us to assume that this short Bill, which contains only a few lines, can be skated through today, dealt with in the odd point of order and regarded as having relatively little importance. I believe that it is more important than that and will prove to be much more important than many people have thought. Indeed, on the question of the relative currencies in Europe, The Daily Telegraph reported only a few days ago:
The Germans are at last in a position to dictate terms. They have no intention of rescuing the dollar, just as they had no intention of helping the pound when it was in trouble two years ago. The strength of the mark suits them well.
In an intervention on Monday on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I pointed out that the Scandinavians have an obsession with the deutschmark—there is no question about that. That is part of the general problem and of the German question. The Germans themselves have to consider their relationship with those countries to ensure that we do not return to the problems of the 1930s.
I do not need to detain the Committee for too long, but I must point out that those who believe that the treaty will be advantageous for the United Kingdom should bear in mind a number of issues. There are said to be four

advantages in the accession of the new member countries. The first is that they are relatively rich and would be net contributors to the European Community. Secondly, they are Protestant countries and would thus shift the balance of power against the subsidy farmers of the Mediterranean or olive belt. Thirdly, like Britain, they are attached to their national sovereignty and would resist further centralisation in Brussels.
Finally, and most important according to Government officials, enlargement is a necessary prelude to extending the European Community into eastern Europe. It is said that that expansion is in turn a moral obligation and the best guarantee against the follies of Euro-federalism as the united states of Europe would be too unwieldy once it included the eastern states. However, none of those arguments stands up to a moment's examination.
While the four new applicants would all be net contributors to the European Community budget—

Mr. Duncan Smith: Only just.

Mr. Cash: Only just, as my hon. Friend rightly says. I refer him to the trade statistics that I mentioned earlier, which are well worth reading. They include details of the massive deficits in favour of Germany.
Those countries' contributions would not noticeably reduce the burden on Britain caused by the Euro-budget, which we shall be discussing in a few months' time. As most of the new entrants' money has already been marked for cohesion funds—a point that some of my colleagues might like to note—to subsidise Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Spain, the idea that the new entrants will tilt the balance against agricultural interests is even more extraordinary. All four of the applicant countries subsidise their farmers even more than the European Community subsidises its farmers through the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Marlow: If we are being invited to vote for clause stand part on the basis that the four new countries will be net contributors to the Community budget, what should we do when we debate the European Community finance Bill, which will mean that we shall have to pay much more money into the Community budget than will be forthcoming from the contributions of the four applicants?

Mr. Cash: As ever, my hon. Friend asks a difficult question. At prayers today we said, "Lead us not into temptation", but the logic of my hon. Friend's argument is difficult to resist.
As I said, all four of the applicant countries subsidise their farmers even more than the EC does. Between 1989 and 1991 the average farm subsidy was 48 per cent. in Austria, 57 per cent. in Sweden, 71 per cent. in Finland and 75 per cent. in Norway—compared with a mere 46 per cent. in the EC. How does that argument stack up? The Minister of State is now having a nice little joke with our distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should be delighted if the Parliamentary Secretary would come to the Dispatch Box and try to deal with my question, because it is a bit of a problem.
Indeed, the most contentious issue in the membership negotiations for each of those countries was Europe's insistence that they cut their farm subsidies and food


prices, which are even more absurdly distorted than those in the EC. How successful were we? I should like an answer to that question.
As for the Scandinavians' fiscal probity, Sweden's Government deficit last year was 14.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, and Finland's was a mere 9.1 per cent. Those figures compare with deficits of 8.2 per cent. in Britain and 9.7 per cent. in that profligate country, Italy. We should bear those facts in mind.
I like to be fair in such matters, so I must admit that Norway does not have any deficit problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do not want to join."] No doubt Norway's lack of problems is due to its massive oil revenues, and I would not mind betting that some of the Norwegians have sussed out that joining is not such a big deal, so Norway may not join anyway.
However, Norway shares a certain fiscal characteristic with all its neighbours in Scandinavia. Wait for it. The Government collect more than 50 per cent. of national income in taxes. My intervention in the Foreign Secretary's speech on Monday pointed out the contrast between our policies and theirs on the social chapter, environmental protection and all that goes with them.
It is said that the Scandinavians are proudly independent and that they would help us to curb Euro-centralisation and harmonisation. However, I cannot agree with that either. As I have said, in almost every sphere in which Britain has fought against Brussels—social policy, trade union rights, consumer protection, environmental regulation—in the negotiations as well as in their domestic policies the Scandinavians have been on the side of more centralisation and regulation, not less. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I regard the attitude of Opposition Members to what I am saying as eloquent testimony to my argument. It is precisely because I disagree with them so much that I have reservations.
Even on monetary policy the Scandinavians have signed up enthusiastically to a single currency for Europe. And, as I have already said, they have an obsession with the deutschmark—complete with 100 per cent. interest rates.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The deutschmark will be the single currency.

Mr. Cash: That is a thought, which I should like to share with my hon. Friends who are worried about the exchange rate mechanism. As Mr. Anatole Kaletsky has pointed out, compared with 100 per cent. interest rates, the Prime Minister's ERM policy could be described as something on the margin.
It is clear why Labour wants the Scandinavian countries as comrades-in-arms, but why on earth should their membership be a top priority for us? At this point, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office throws its last argument into the arena. It says that enlargement is inherently desirable regardless of which countries are admitted because by widening Europe we shall prevent or at least delay any further deepening along federal lines. The Foreign Office advisers, who will urge the Prime Minister and others to back down on Europe, regard this as their intellectual trump card. But that argument is even more specious and certainly more unworthy—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the European Union (Accessions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friends may say that they have missed some of the argument. I assure you, Dame Janet, that I shall keep my argument as short as possible. I was on the point about the intellectual trump card of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am no more hostile to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office than I am to the aspirations of the Chancellery in Bonn. I regard what the Foreign Office has done as a perfectly understandable if mistaken policy. I do not say that in respect of this Bill because, although I have been critical about aspects of it, if there were a vote, I should vote for it. That is only because I believe that we must reorganise, under the 1996 conference, the whole of the Maastricht negotiations. The whole thing must be renegotiated. If we succeed in that objective and if the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office and the House are determined to ensure that we manage to renegotiate the Maastricht treaty, the four applicant countries will benefit from the fact that we shall have unravelled the legal framework that currently shackles and chains us down.
The diplomats have misled themselves. Do they really think that they can gull the French, the Germans, the Belgians and the other federalists, or are they really trying to fool the Tory party into supporting the federalism that is secretly embedded in the continuation of Maastricht within the framework of this treaty? That is the key to understanding the arrangement.
If the Community is to be widened, it must be a proper widening and not one that gives more power to Germany. After all, only the other day the Prime Minister turned down Mr. Jean-Luc Dehaene precisely for that reason. We are told that our right hon. Friend did not want Jean-Luc Dehaene to be imposed on us by the Germans. If that is the case, surely the corollary to that is that we ensure that we are not conned by the arrangements under the Maastricht treaty itself. This treaty of accession builds on that.
I shall simply conclude—

Mr. John Biffen: Oh no.

Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend says no. I must say that I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
This treaty is more important than it looks. It is more important than its size, because its content is the future of Europe. It treads a path through history. It treads a path to the borders of Russia; to anschluss in the 1930s. It treads a path throughout the entire European foreign policy of the past 200 years. I hope that those four countries, on an enlarged basis, will contribute to the European Union. That is why I shall not vote against the treaty, but only on the basis that this treaty, like the others, will be renegotiated in 1996.

Mr. Biffen: rose—

Mr. Spearing: rose—

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The debate has


had all the variety of a Second Reading with a great deal of the detail that we would expect in Committee. I shall endeavour to answer at least the main points that have been made. If I fail in that, I shall write to hon. Members who may have raised matters of particular detail.
The clause is the heart of the Bill. It takes the treaty into United Kingdom law by the familiar means of using the European Communities Act 1972. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) began the debate in characteristic style by suggesting that the four EFTA states were deluding themselves about the advantages of entering. In saying that, he underestimated their political acumen and their ability to assess where their own interests lay. All those countries have vigorous democratic systems. The whole process of applying and joining the European Economic Area and now, we hope, the European Union has been accompanied by an extremely wide-ranging and vigorous public debate in those countries. Indeed, the result of the Austrian referendum showed that, at least in that country, the people there weighed up the advantages and disadvantages and came to the very clear conclusion that the future of their country lay in the European Union.
My hon. Friend mentioned fish in particular and that issue was also raised by other hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is not in his place at present. My hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and others questioned me about the balance of advantage and, in particular, they wanted an assurance that our own fishing industry was not put at any disadvantage by the accession treaty. I re-emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Second Reading that we have successfully reaffirmed the principle of relative stability as the foundation for the allocation of fishing opportunities between member states. That fact was conveyed to us with satisfaction by representatives of the fishing organisations.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is not present but I, too, noted the Foreign Secretary's phrase. Is that not typical Euro-mysticism? How can one assess relative stability? Who is to decide what is relative to something else? Looked at cynically, does it not simply mean that it is a flexible opportunity for change?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I leave it to the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to comment on that. He wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 31 March to explain that
we were extremely appreciative of the efforts of'—
my hon. Friend and myself—
to safeguard successfully the…cod quota and the principle of relative stability. The satisfactory outcome to the succession negotiations…is very welcome indeed.
If the industry is happy with the outcome of the negotiations, that should be enough for the House of Commons.
On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that there were new opportunities for British fishermen. During the long and arduous negotiations we gained additional flexibility to fish western mackerel in each of the management areas concerned, including for the first time access to Norwegian waters for that stock. I can

reassure the Committee that Spain has not gained any new access either to the North sea or to the waters of the west coast of Scotland and Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East talked about our gross contribution. That is more properly a matter for future legislation, when the House of Commons will have an opportunity to consider the EC finance Bill in the next Session. I reaffirm and re-emphasise that, for the purposes of the Bill before us, as a result of the accession of the four applicant states the United Kingdom's net contributions will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

Mr. Marlow: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the Committee what the savings will be from this Bill and what the costs would be from the EC finance Bill. Perhaps he could make a comparison in terms of the ratio of one to the other. I think that the Committee would be interested to know that at this stage.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can repeat the figures that were given on Second Reading. During the first six years of accession our net contribution will be lower by about £350 million than it otherwise would have been. Thereafter there will be a net saving of about—it is only an estimate—£75 million a year. As for the other information that my hon. Friend wants, I must tell him that the Bill that we shall be considering in due course will refer to how our contributions will be affected by the Edinburgh conclusions on own resources that we and other member states will be paying into the budget between now and 1999.
I have been asked what would happen if one or more member states failed to join. Provision is made for that in the treaty that is under consideration. There would, of course, have to be some consequential adjustments, especially to the qualified majority voting arrangements. That is foreseen in the treaty and it would not be necessary to have a renegotiation.
The arithmetical alterations to the qualified majority voting figures would be limited to those technically necessary by the non-accession of one or more member states. That would be done by unanimity at a Council meeting held immediately after the relevant referendum. I can assure the Committee that the arithmetic is relatively uncontroversial and straightforward. There is a precedent because in 1972 Norway said no in a referendum and precisely the adjustments that I have described had to be made. That was done almost immediately and without controversy, and in time for the other member states to come in on the date specified in the treaty.

Mr. Marlow: The treaty states that a qualified majority will require 64 votes. If Norway does not join, would it be the Government's view, and would the Government be unanimous with other Governments, that it would be indispensable to change that part of the treaty? If the Government did not agree, there would be no unanimity. Therefore, there could be no change and we would stick on 64. If we stuck on 64, a blocking minority of 24 would exist instead of 27. I think that that would be something that the Government would favour.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If Norway failed to accede, the treaty blocking minority would reduce from 27 to 26. That is clear from the arithmetic. It would not be open to the Government, or any other member state, to take a


completely different view, which I believe my hon. Friend is inviting me to take, because the treaty refers to adjustments which are indispensable. That clearly refers to the technical and consequential adjustments that would flow naturally from the non-accession of one member state.
10.15 pm
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred at length to defence and security matters. I will not follow him down all the paths that he mapped out. However, I agree with him that it is very important that the future evolution of a European security apparatus, particularly through the Western European Union, is fully compatible with the Atlantic alliance and NATO in particular. That is one reason why we hope that Norway will accede, because it is a long-standing member of NATO.
The fact that three of the EFTA states concerned are currently neutral shows that they are shifting in their attitudes to that concept. Many people in those countries believe that the traditional neutrality that they have followed has become out of date following the end of the cold war. They are seeking to integrate their foreign policies more in line with the common foreign and security policy which the Maastricht treaty set up for the first time. There is no obligation on those states to join WEU, but I hope and expect that in due course they will at least become associated with the treaty.
In reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), I put it to him that the fact that the European Union can welcome into its membership countries with a wide diversity of security attitudes—three of them being neutral—is an example of that multi-track Europe which my hon. Friend seeks. That is achieved within the existing treaty. No amendments are necessary. That shows that the treaty of Rome as amended by Maastricht is highly tolerant to several different security systems.
However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North about a point that he made. A similar point was made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). This enlargement round is not, by itself, sufficient. We, too, regard it as one further step, but an important step, on the way to others which must include, in some way, the countries of central and eastern Europe.

Mr. Jenkin: Is not the real test of whether we are beginning to decentralise the Community not the multi-speed, multi-track aspects of the separate pillars—the pillars are apart from the main part of the Community—but whether we start to have multi-layer, multi-speed and multi-track in the central pillar, in the European Community itself, and cease to have to regard the acquis communautaire as inviolate, untouchable, sacrosanct and hitherto completely protected by subsidiarity? The Edinburgh guidelines on subsidiarity specifically state that one cannot attack the acquis communautaire.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall not follow my hon. Friend too far down that road as it is essentially a point for other debates. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made the point from the Dispatch Box that even within that central pillar of the Community there is already a variable geometry or multi-speed system. The provisions relating to monetary union allow for different timetables for different states. I would argue that, leaving aside how the Community or the Union may develop, we

already have in it more than the seeds—we have the reality of some of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North is seeking.
The hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) questioned me about whaling. I can assure both hon. Members that Norway did not seek and certainly did not receive any opt out or derogation from the provisions in existing EC law relating to whaling. The combined effect of the existing measures on whales and whaling amounts to a de facto ban on commercial whaling by member states in Community waters. Norway has agreed to and will be signing up to all the obligations and rules as they relate to whaling.

Mr. Tony Banks: Under the terms of the accession, at what point must the Norwegians cease whaling or find themselves in contravention of EU law?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When Norway joins the European Union—on 1 January next year, I hope.
That brings me to an important point on which I think that I differ from the hon. Gentleman. He said that he did not want to see Norway join because of its whaling policy. I argue that all who seek an end to Norwegian whaling should welcome Norway into the European Union. The hon. Gentleman asked me what this country could do to try to protect whales more effectively from the Norwegians. The answer is, very little until Norway joins. Once it is subject to the rules, regulations and laws of the European Union, the whales will be safer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work for and welcome Norway's accession in due course.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give us a clear and specific assurance—I know that he will—that, in the event of the Norwegians seeking derogation, the Government will stop it?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No derogation has been sought and the question does not arise. I must be candid with my hon. Friend—many of the rules and regulations have not been tested fully in the European Court. I think that it was the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow who said that the issue may go to the European Court, and he may be right. The position is not entirely clear. I am giving what I consider to be the clearest guidance that I can at this stage.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am a Conservative Member with some doubt about the relevance of subsidiarity. Could the Norwegians claim that it was a matter that they should decide under subsidiarity because of its critical importance to the Norwegian economy?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, they cannot do that because they must and will sign up to the existing obligations and rules. Those rules cover whaling in directives such as the habitats directive—specifically aimed at whales and their protection.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and others talked about salmon. Norway will be entitled to all the rights of membership, including trade access for fish products. Article 53 of the treaty provides for the Commission to monitor the effect of serious disturbance of fishing markets and to take appropriate


action if necessary. Once Norway is a member, if dumping can be proved or the payment of state aids by the Norwegian Government can be shown, action can be taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) discussed institutional reform. That is chiefly a matter for 1996, not this debate. But we share his view that there are too many Commissioners. There will be 21 if all four countries accede, which is too many. I do not know what they will all find to do. At the next intergovernmental conference I hope that we shall be able to find a way of reducing the number. I hope that it will not reduce my hon. Friend's enthusiasm to know that Mr. Delors shares his view. Mr. Delors wants a more effective, smaller Commission, whereas the maverick view might be to keep increasing the number of Commissioners so that they eventually collapse under the weight of their own expansion.
Certainly it is the view of the Government—I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford on this—that a pruning of the numbers would help us to achieve a more efficient, effective and responsive Commission. We shall work to that end in 1996.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) made several points which I shall not endeavour to answer as I tried to do so on Second Reading. However, I must take issue with one point that he made. He takes a most pessimistic view of the future development of German foreign policy. I do not share that view. In particular, he made the point—I regard it as an allegation—that Austria would become little more than a German satellite and could always be counted on to vote the German way. That is clearly wrong. In their referendum, the Austrian people did not vote 2:1 for entry in order to achieve an anschluss. They wish to join the European Union precisely because they will be able to sit alongside their German neighbours in the Council of Ministers on the basis of equality. It is precisely to avoid domination by one powerful neighbour that they believe that their relationship with Germany is best pursued in the context of a wider union.
With those few remarks, I commend clause 1 to the Committee.

Ms Quin: I welcome clause 1. It is the main clause of the Bill and the main part of the ratification process of the treaty of accession. Just as we welcomed the Bill strongly on Second Reading, so we welcome clause 1. The Minister was correct in saying that as it was the main clause it allowed a wide debate and allowed many hon. Members who had perhaps wished to speak on Second Reading to make their points on this occasion.
My hon. Friends have made many valid points, particularly on fishing, on whaling—raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—and on the possible consequences for European security arrangements of the accessions that we are considering today.
We have heard a variety of speeches from Conservative Members. They were somewhat different from the speeches on Second Reading. Several hon. Members almost seemed to be against enlargement. Certainly, the hon. Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) seemed to think that this enlargement would reinforce centralism within the European Union.

Many of us feel that it would not. They talked about "unthinking centralism" and seemed to suggest that the applicant countries favoured it.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) talked about the commitment of the four countries, which we welcome, to high levels of social protection. He said that that was a direction that he and others did not like. I certainly do not believe that the four countries are in favour of unthinking centralism, and neither are we. It seems to me that many of the European Union countries already offer a decentralised model. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the belief in decentralisation here.
One thing that struck me in the debate was the great amount of suspicion which seems to exist among Conservative Members towards their own Foreign Office Ministers. [Interruption.] I am glad that they agree so strongly. It was particularly true of the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford and perhaps even more striking in the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who said that he did not believe a word that the Foreign Secretary had said on fishing.
The Governments of the four countries believe strongly that it is in their interests to join the EU—including the people of Austria, as shown by their referendum result. Interestingly enough, they also feel that the terms of entry meet their concerns. Perhaps in that respect they are somewhat more fortunate than we were when we joined some 20 years ago. It is now up to the people of those countries where referendums have not yet been held to give their views. I hope that they will be encouraged by the support that most of us in the Committee have given to them tonight.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Spearing: Let us have some democracy in this place.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

POWERS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to make one brief point which is of some significance, and I would appreciate the Minister's view on it. When we passed the Maastricht treaty, we were told that when we became citizens of the European Union we had certain entitlements given to us in relation to voting in European elections and in council elections.
Although I did not choose to become such a citizen, can the Minister say how article 13 on page 359 of the treaty conforms to that? The article provides that member states


who find that 20 per cent. of their citizens are citizens not of their country but of other parts of the European Union can say that those people cannot vote unless they have resided in that country for five years and cannot stand for election unless they have resided there for ten years. That is set out in detail in article 13 of page 359. Can the Minister say why the Government accepted that and, in particular, whether it does not conflict totally with the assurances given in Maastricht on the rights of European citizens?
My second point is also brief. As the treaty also excludes certain areas of Norway and Sweden from having representation in the European Parliament—the Minister kindly provided detailed written answers on 11 July on the matter—is that also in conflict with Maastricht? It seems to be almost a form of ethnic cleansing. If that applied in Britain, and we felt that 20 per cent. of our voters were French, German, Italian or from other parts of the Union, we could say that they would have to have had five years' residence. That seems to be an unusual clause which does not seem to have any relevance to the previous treaty. Why on earth was it put in the treaty at all?

Mr. Spearing: First, may I apologise for a wholly out of order remark, Mr. Lofthouse? You may realise that a brief contribution at the end of the previous debate might have been of interest, particularly as the Minister rose when the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and myself had indicated that we wished to speak. I will not pursue that matter because we are now debating clause 2.
I wish to ask—why is the clause here? We are all, whether we like it or not, citizens of the European Union and we all have a vote for the European Parliament. If the powers of the European Parliament were being expanded by virtue of the treaty of accession, under the European Assembly Elections Act 1981, there must be permission for that in an Act of Parliament.
I hope that the Minister can tell us why the clause is here. I was not aware that the treaty of accession, as distinct from the treaty of Union, enlarged the powers of the European Parliament, although of course it would enlarge its membership.

Mr. Biffen: What I have to say is tolerably brief and could certainly be as easily contained in a debate on clause 1 as on clause 2. It does not require much elasticity to ensure that it can relate to clause 2. I want to talk about the principles of consent which are contained in the Bill. I want to do so in the context of a quite remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It will not be the first occasion when a parliamentary campaign is conducted with relentless concentration upon one central issue which it is believed will have growing dominance in the public perception of what is at stake.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is in his place. He adds great intellectual distinction to our gatherings—a Greek planted among Romans—and he will confirm that Cicero warned again and again about the danger that Carthage posed for Rome. In that tradition, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is claiming that we cannot understand the European Union, or the implications of this Bill, or the enlargement process described in it, without relating it all to German policy. Those who believe that enlargement will, as it were, modify the sharpness of Germany have got it wrong.

Enlargement will merely serve to underline the German confrontation with the rest of Europe that will almost inevitably proceed from the collapse of Soviet power as Europe reverts to its more historic power structures.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the determination with which he pursues the argument. I happen to disagree with it; I would not want hon. Members to think that I share that view of Germany. I do say, however, that we cannot understand what is developing in Europe without trying to see it through the eyes of the major European power. That does not entail facile performances of the type that President Kennedy attempted when he went to Germany and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner". That was all very well for a word bite, but our perceptions and judgments must be a good deal more sustained than that.
I welcome the clarity that my hon. Friend brings to these debates, although I also understand why the Minister did not immediately endorse his arguments. This is a debate that will remain with us. I look forward to more—perhaps briefer—contributions with the same degree of persistence by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.
To return to my theme of consent: clause 2 mentions the European Parliament, perhaps the institution most clearly linked to the idea of consent in all this. As we are being somewhat intellectual this evening, I should like to recall Shakespeare's comment that
a monarch needs no unwilling subjects".
The truth about the European Community is that it is a bosses' show, a bureaucrats' show, a politicians' show. It has never been a people's Europe, although I know the Liberal Democrats hope to develop that idea.
Perhaps the most depressing feature of the recent European elections was the fact that so few people turned out to vote, and they do so in diminishing numbers at each election. Worse still, in almost every country the elections were fought on every subject under the sun—except the European Union. There is no basis for the EU in popular consent, which has been lacking even when a referendum has been used as a device to secure endorsement. The consequences of using that device have been relatively short lived.
My observations arise not out of any hostility for the arrangements that we have in the European Union but out of the fact that what I have described is the truth. Any analysis rooted in realism must accept that. Some of my hon. Friends have begun to develop a dialectic that contrasts widening with deepening. Those who claim that deepening must parallel widening must be quite sure what they mean by deepening. They had better be quite clear as to what further commitments should be made and, above all, they have to be able to demonstrate that the powers that will be taken by Government do not have to take account of the very thin levels of popular support for the European Union across all its functions.
I make that observation with no great foreboding or warning, except that if we are to have a debate about the balance between widening and deepening, let it be quite clear that unless and until we have clear, enduring evidence of popular affection for the European Union as a concept which commands loyalty and, above all, will support sacrifice—because government is about ordering priorities and the sacrifice that goes with ordering priorities—and if that mood and that commitment does not exist, whatever


we advocate in respect of deepening has to take that severely into account or once more we shall embark upon a false trail which will end in disillusion.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall try briefly to answer one or two of the points that have been raised. I shall have to write to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who raised a rather detailed point. One might say that he has taken out one of my stumps as I am not aware of the particular residency voting requirements in the clause to which he drew attention.
In answer to my hon. Friend's other point, there are provisions for some of the states, particularly Norway and Finland, to decide later whether they wish to include particular areas in the franchise for the European Parliament. My hon. Friend may be referring in particular to the Aland islands, which enjoy a high degree of autonomy within Finland. The Finnish Government have not yet decided whether they should be directly represented in the European Parliament.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked what was the point of the clause. We are required to legislate through the House when the powers of the European Parliament are enhanced in any way. They are in one small and detailed respect: the European Parliament will have the power to vet and approve the credentials of Members of the European Parliament elected between now and the end of the year from the accession states, in the event that in the next few months any of those countries wish to elect people to sit in the European Parliament. After 1 January next year, their credentials will have to be approved and that power, small though it is, will pass to the European Parliament.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), I cannot possibly satisfy him or give him an adequate answer, except that I entirely accept his point about the need to take the people with us. One of the lessons of Maastricht was that the political class in Europe got well ahead of the people that it represented. It behoves us all to try to create a Europe for people, not one to satisfy political vanities or bureaucratic convenience.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 4

CLARIFICATION

'Within 12 months of the ratification of the treaty the Secretary of State shall present to parliament a report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union, its agricultural policy and its fishing industry.'.—[Sir Teddy Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the only amendment which has been selected out of five pages of amendments, not because the Chairman of Ways and Means has become mean, but because in every single piece of European legislation the Government are becoming more clever in having a short title which

prevents any detailed discussion on almost anything. Only through the skills of our own researchers are we able to have one particular amendment discussed in new clause 4.
The Government should be aware that it does not exactly help democracy when Members of Parliament are unable to discuss any aspect of policy in detail. While they are certainly very clever, conscientious and able, it does not exactly help democracy when we have a Bill which contains many important issues, but Parliament is unable to discuss them at all.
My new clause is simple. It suggests:
Within 12 months of the ratification of the treaty the Secretary of State shall present to parliament a report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union, its agricultural policy and its fishing industry.
I think that it is a very good idea for the Government to tell hon. Members a year later whether things have turned out as they predicted. Irrespective of their views on the EC, hon. Members will surely agree that almost every day we receive information revealing that last year's pledges and assurances have turned out to be a load of rubbish, and that the Government are not really in control.
10.45 pm
It will be remembered that a Council was held in the lovely city of Edinburgh. Although they would be closing down plenty of military establishments the next day, causing much sadness among the military community, the Government agreed to give more cash to the EC, on one condition—that there were strict budgetary limits on spending. Hon. Members cheered, just as they cheered Mrs. Thatcher when we did same thing under the Single European Act. We said, "At last we have control. They cannot overspend by a penny." But we have already seen what has happened. We have seen a statement signed by the Paymaster General, which I obtained privately, and also one from Brussels, showing that, despite that pledge, our people will have to spend £1,000 million above the legal limit on agriculture in 1995 because the Commission says that that must be done. The Government say that it can be done if we spend reserve funds.
The same applies to contributions to agricultural spending. We were given assurances that things were sorted out now—that the amount would not be much more. I have challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have with me the paper which states that in 1995 Britain will be paying an extra £2,000 million in its gross contribution. That means that every family living in every constituency, and all the poor Members of Parliament who have been assured that things are under control, will be spending an extra £3 a week.
It is all very well for some hon. Members to laugh, but there are many poor families in Britain. Many people cannot make ends meet. It is no fun for them to be told, "Sadly, we have got it wrong. You will all have to pay an extra £3 a week." It may be fun for Members of Parliament, but it is not fun for people who are finding it difficult to pay gas, water and electricity bills—people who may be unemployed. It is wrong, evil and terrible that Members of Parliament are consistently being led up the garden path and not being told the truth. Why not make a gesture of reconciliation? I am only asking the Government to come back to us a year after the treaty's ratification and say how it has worked out.
Fishermen are being told not to worry—everything will be all right. Our fishing industry will be slightly stronger, we are told, with with more opportunities; the Norwegian


industry will be all right. The plain fact is, as the Minister knows—he is one of the few honest guys in this place—that we have already agreed that in 1996 restrictions on the Spaniards will be removed. We have seen what has happened to our fishing fleet in the north: the Spaniards have cleared it out and our North sea catches are down to less than a quarter of their former value. Foreign Office Ministers may walk out of the Chamber, but they know the facts. They know that the value of our catch has fallen by three quarters. People become unemployed and all we do is offer them cash.
The Government say, "Do not worry about these countries joining; we are going to get more money. Britain will be £300 millon better off." The detailed Library papers, however, show that it is not quite as simple as that. Because we shall pay large amounts of compensation to these countries for several years in the form of transitional payments, no saving at all will be made, at least for the first four years. We are far from sure what will happen after that. I may be wrong, the Government may be wrong, but why not come back just once, in a year, and say how it worked out?
The same applies to agriculture. We are told time and again that agriculture will get better and that expenditure will go down. Yet time and again the Government's assessments are shown to be inaccurate, to be lies and misunderstandings or to be a mistake by the Foreign Office.
We cannot carry on like this. People are suffering. According to our Foreign Secretary, the average family in this country pays £28 a week extra on its food or taxes purely because of the CAP. Next year, they will be paying an extra £5 a week. That is not right.
Auditors' reports are published showing fraud and extravagance, but they are never debated in the House. I am not asking the Government to accept all that I am saying or to say that we should leave the EC or encourage others to do so or even that we should spend less money. I am simply saying that, as a gesture of reconciliation, the Government could agree to approve a clause that asks them to come back in a year and tell us how things have worked out. I do not think that that is asking too much. The Government could agree to do that just once. They could say, "We thought certain things were going to happen and they all did. How right we were"; or perhaps, "Things did not quite work out as they should." That would be far better.
My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that we do not want to pass unnecessary legislation. We do not want to stick something into the Bill that we do not need. The Government will probably say, "Why bother about it anyway because hon. Members can ask questions?" My hon Friend the Minister is an honest chap in the Foreign Office and he knows that we cannot table questions. We cannot ask about our trade with the EC. We are told that the answers are contained in information in the Library. Sadly, the Library figures are not precise because there are many different ways of assessing them. The Government have now achieved a situation in which on many of the basic issues, such as contributions and spending on agriculture, Members can no longer ask questions; we have to go to the Library.
Just once, I want to ask our friendly Foreign Office to come back in a year and provide some figures and let us have a look. We do not even need to have a debate,

although I should prefer one. This is a sensible and helpful suggestion and what has happened in the past more than justifies the request.
The new clause does not propose revolution. We are not proposing that everyone should stand on their head or that policy should change. We are simply asking for an auditor's report in one year to see how things have worked out. If the Opposition and the Government accept that, it will make us all happy. We will know that at least once we will have a proper auditor's report on what has happened, without having to listen to all the nonsense, misunderstandings and sometimes the blatant untruths that, unfortunately, we sometimes hear from the Foreign Office. Many hon. Members have tonight specified that the Foreign Office is the source of deliberate misunderstanding. That is wrong in a democracy.

Ms Quin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on at least having his new clause selected for debate. As he pointed out, he was the only person who managed to achieve that.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will admit that the new clause is modest in its scope. The Opposition are not particularly enthusiastic about it, simply because it refers to only certain aspects in the treaty of accession and not others. There are many other matters in that treaty that could be looked at. For example, social matters form an important section of the treaty. Other issues include environmental matters, regional matters and matters relating to democracy and open government. There is the declaration by Sweden on open government which also forms part of the accession documents.
The hon. Gentleman has made some valid points, particularly about the cost of agriculture for people on low incomes or who are living in poverty. However, if the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about poverty, he and his colleagues should speak out much more on the taxation system, the VAT rises and the deregulation employment policy of the Government, which have done a great deal to promote poverty in this country.
Six-monthly reports are presented on developments in the European Union. Issues such as those referred to in the new clause can properly be raised in those reports and in Select Committees and European Scrutiny Committees. I am not certain or convinced that the new clause is necessary. As I said earlier, we do not like its selective nature. If a report were to be presented, we would much rather that it referred to all the issues raised in the accession treaty. The hon. Member for Southend, East has an obvious and repeated distrust of the Foreign Office, so I am not sure that he would believe what was in such a report.

Mr. Wilkinson: In the debate on clause 1 stand part, I called my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) Mr. Valiant for Truth, and right hon. and hon. Members who heard his speech on the new clause will understand why. My hon. Friend and the supporters of the new clause are not asking anything extravagant or extraordinary of the Government. All we are asking is that their practice should match their rhetoric. We have often heard calls for open government and that the Government are custodians of the practice of open government.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) said that the new clause is modest and not comprehensive,


which is true. It does not refer to the environment or social policy, but it does refer to the three key issues that impinge on people's livelihoods and welfare.
The question of the European Union's finances is fundamental. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to the notional saving of £300 million over six years in our net contribution, which was described by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his Second Reading speech, and the big increase in this country's gross contribution next year and probably thereafter. We want to see how that equation develops and whether we will achieve the savings that have been promised.
One needs only to take a trip around the countryside and to see the fields of oilseed rape and acres of set-aside land full of weeds to wonder whether the costly extravagance of the agricultural policy is working and whether it is in the interests of our people.
As for the fishing industry, as I mentioned in the debate on clause 1 stand part, whole communities are becoming derelict, which is a tragedy for many coastal villages throughout the land. We want to see whether policy is working out as the Government promised it would.
The new clause makes a modest, simple request of the Government. In a year's time, we want them to give an account of themselves on the important matter of the workings of the European Union after the accession of the four applicant countries, if all four join.

Mr. Winterton: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Apart from the intervention that I made earlier, this is the first time that I have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friend said that the new clause is modest in its intent and objectives. That was confirmed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who spoke for the Opposition. It is extraordinary, however, that Back Benchers have been able to debate only one amendment or new clause on a matter that I believe is of constitutional importance.
In an intervention in an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) highlighted the lack of interest in Europe—in the European Community or the European Union—displayed by the people of this country. He said that the interest in and support for the European Community or European Union was in fact diminishing. I believe that the House has an important role to play, and I deeply regret the fact that it is unable to make a more meaningful contribution to debates such as this on behalf of the people whom we are here to represent. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made that point many times.
11 pm
The objectives behind the new clause are very limited. If the House does not allow its Members to represent the deep concerns of the people of this country about matters of constitutional importance such as this Bill, those people will wreak their vengeance on the political parties that have allowed the Bill to be passed in their name.
I do not think that it is unreasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), to ask the Government and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has

displayed an understanding and realism greater than those of any other Minister at the Foreign Office, to give a sympathetic response to the new clause. Is it wrong to ask a Minister to come back to the House in 12 months' time to give an account of how the Bill has affected this country in three important areas of activity—finance, agriculture and fishing?
I accept what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said in her brief contribution. Many of us would have wished the new clause to go even wider. If the House is to play a meaningful role in the governance of this country—in the United Kingdom and within the European Union—surely it is not too much to ask the Government to report to the House on whether what they said during the passage of the Bill was accurate and, if it was not, to provide an accurate report on precisely what has happened and to outline its actual impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East mentioned the cost to the people of this country of the European Community. I believe that he talked of a figure of £28 a week for each family. Is it not right that the United Kingdom Parliament should be able to judge what the Government have done and represent the interests of the people? If not, why are we debating the Bill at this time of night? [Interruption.] I am happy to hear a response from hon. Members who are not even within the limits of the Chamber. It is extraordinary that we should be able to debate only one modest new clause tabled in respect of a measure of such great constitutional importance.
I believe fervently in Parliament and in the role of its Back Benchers—I have been practising it for 23 years without a break. I suggest to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has made a very modest request of the Government. I do not think that the Government are being honest with the House and with the people of this country unless they are prepared to report back to the House in 12 months' time to justify the policies that they have urged the House, and especially their colleagues, to adopt.
I have been brief and direct. I believe that, yet again, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, like my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Ruislip-Northwood, has done the people of this country a great service. My hon. Friends will go down in the history of this place as honest, direct and honourable. I ask the Government to do the same.

Mr. Marlow: I, too, intend to be brief, Mr. Lofthouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for introducing the new clause, and I am especially concerned that we should have an early report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union.
One of the most important aspects is European monetary union. As we all know, that will be very expensive indeed, as countries in southern Europe are bought off through cohesion. The four applicant countries are in the penumbra of the Hun, so they will be in favour of European monetary union. Their joining the Community will make it more likely to go forward. Therefore, if we are to influence the debate on European monetary union, it is most important for the Government to make their position crystal clear at an early stage, through the report.
We know the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that a European state without a single currency is


unthinkable. We know the views of the Secretary of State for the Environment—"Not tonight, Josephine. We do not know what the circumstances are; we do not know where we shall be, or what our attitude will be." Monetary union will take place by stealth.
The real question, the question to which we all need the answer, is: what are the Prime Minister's views? One could say that over the past few weeks my right hon. Friend has made a fresh start, and his fortunes are improving. Perhaps by making his position clear in the report on European monetary union he could add momentum to that recovery.
It would be useful to revisit my right hon. Friend's article in The Economist of 25 September 1993, in which he said that the nation state was here to stay. Is that compatible with monetary union? He also said that the people find the centralising vision of Europe alarming. Is that compatible with monetary union? He said that decision making should come closer to the people, not further away. Those issues could be reported on in the annual report.
The Prime Minister said in that article that economic and monetary union was a rain dance—something for the witch doctors. That is all sensible and encouraging stuff. But why not go further, especially as the four applicant countries will probably be hell-bent on monetary union? Let us make our position clear soon. Let us build on my right hon. Friend's success at Corfu, especially in the light of his views as expressed in the article in The Economist.
A real friend might say to my right hon. Friend, "John, you're on a roll. You're doing well. Cash in; take it further. The party in the country, the party in Parliament, and above all the people, want a European policy with which they can be at ease, a policy that they understand, and one that suits the United Kingdom. You've got it; go for it."
Of course we all know what a single currency would mean. It would not be a convenience for commerce or a bonanza for business. It would mean massive transfer payments. Those could be set out bit by bit in the report—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As is not uncommon, the hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the new clause. Will he get back to it?

Mr. Marlow: I have nearly come to the end of my remarks, Mr. Lofthouse.
I am saying that the Prime Minister, by bringing forward the report, could make his position with regard to monetary union crystal clear to the country. It is not a convenience for commerce or a bonanza for business. It means—these are items that could be set out in the report—a massive transfer of funds from the United Kingdom to the southern European countries. It means single interest rates and a single economy. It means harmonisation and a high rate of taxes. It means a single bank and it means inevitably that instead of being a nation state, instead of being the United Kingdom, we should become a mere province of a single, centralised European state. The decision making would be not closer but further from the people. There would be an expensive rain dance of an unrepresentative and unaccountable Government—the witch doctors of the European elite. That would bring forward a storm of resentment and ungovernability which would wash away not only the Treasury's policy and the

agricultural policy, which would be reported on, but some of the aspects of European co-operation of which we are all in favour.
It could be said in the report that the British people cannot afford European monetary union and do not want European monetary union. From his statements, it is clear that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not want European monetary union. If the heart and mind of the Prime Minister and the hearts and minds of the people of the United Kingdom take the same view on this vital issue of policy—this vital issue of identity—does it do any harm for the Prime Minister to make that clear now? Does it do any harm for him to say, "I will never accept the single currency and I will never accept the single European state"? The two are a distinction without a difference.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I want to be helpful to my hon. Friends because I think that the provision of information to the House is important. National Parliaments should be more involved in European legislation and developments in Europe than they have been. However, the information sought in the new clause is generally available in other ways. During the passage of the Bill, we have tried to set out the implications of accession—in documentary form as well. On 29 March, we sent to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs a fairly detailed account of the negotiations at that point.
In addition, my hon. Friends have overlooked the elaborate scrutiny system that already exists in the House. All important documents coming from the European institutions are deposited with the Select Committee on European Legislation and are available for scrutiny and debate. Indeed, I gave evidence to that Committee yesterday. Developments in the European Union are reported in six-monthly White Papers and Ministers frequently make statements on their return from Council meetings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in particular mentioned finance. It is true that the EC budget will have to be adjusted to take account of the states that accede, but that, too, will be the subject of scrutiny and debate. The documents will be deposited in the normal way, I hope before the end of this year.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sheer scale of this? The EU proposes to provide 200 million ecu in the first year for Norway alone. It is estimated that the cost of agricultural support is 2 billion ecu. Where is that extra 1.8 billion ecu to be found?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As has frequently been made clear, agricultural support in the four countries is extremely high. One of the advantages of bringing the countries into the European Union is that it will reduce the degree of agricultural protection in Europe. Bringing them into the Union will be a net gain in terms of the reduction in agricultural protection. The overall flow of funds is to our advantage. I repeat the point that, although the common agricultural policy will remain expensive in those states, they are more than paying their own way—not only in the long term, but even during the transitional period before their systems align fully with existing policies.
The point on which I must end is that we should not legislate unless we absolutely have to. That is the principle, after all, which underlies our deregulation efforts. Given


that all the information will be made available under normal proceedings, I must invite the Committee to reject the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Spearing: The Committee was surprised that the Government Front-Bench spokesmen, or one part of their team, took steps to prevent the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) from contributing to an earlier debate. However, with his characteristic ingenuity and his knowledge of the rules of the House, he was able to speak.
On Third Reading, the Bill being about the Community and accession to it, I, too, would like to use the opportunity that the Standing Orders provide to make some brief remarks. The Bill is to permit the applicants, if they so wish, to join the Community—this Union which prides itself on its democratic tradition and its democratic opportunity, but which nevertheless is at something of a turning point due to the increasing dominance of one of its member states. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred a short time ago to what happened in Europe 50 years ago. Through the sacrifice of his father 50 years ago today, people like myself were spared the attacks of certain weapons in London. Those of us who survived that period were determined that after that war Europe would be a place where such a war could not happen again.
The Bill and the Community that we are offering to our Scandinavian neighbours is founded on treaties which cannot—and, I fear, will not—provide that sense of security, of democracy, of co-operation that we all sought 50 years ago. The reason is that, instead of encouraging co-operation, the Community's treaties encourage competition. Instead of going about things in an open way, they encourage package bargaining and secret negotiation. That is why our friends in Germany, in seeking to keep the freedom of their lands, are advocating a federal structure which some Conservative Members and others in this country rightly fear so much.
In other words, the Bill will enable our Scandinavian neighbours, if they so wish, to accede to a Community whose constitution and whose treaties are flawed because they do not serve the purposes for which they are advertised and cannot bear the fruit for which they are constantly praised and, one hopes, expected to produce. I do not think that they can achieve those objectives.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, myself and others have not thought this because of antagonism towards our friends in Europe. It is the opposite of that. We want to ensure that friendship is founded on real democracy, real freedom and real open government, but we fear that these treaties will not ensure that. I hope that our Scandinavian friends, having been given the opportunity to choose whether to stand aside and to co-operate outside the

alleged Community and the alleged Union, will opt to do so. It will be to their advantage and to the advantage of all countries in Europe if they choose not to accede at this stage. It will also be to the advantage of the House, the quality of politics in this land and the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marlow: I shall be incredibly brief. We are in favour, apparently, of bringing these countries into the European Community because Europe is moving our way, because they will agree with us and because they will help us to move Europe our way. Apparently they will help us to reform the institutions of Europe.
I have a suggestion for the Government. Money is power, and the less money the institutions of the European Community have, the less power they have—so do not bring forward the European Community finance Bill. Our finances have changed and Europe's finances have changed. There is massive fraud. We know that £300 million is being wasted on the European Parliament. We are taxing our elderly people to pay for their heating and we cannot afford it. Let us cut off the supply of money and add that to the alliance that we shall have with the four new countries of the European Community. Let us beat some sense into the heads of the bureaucrats of Brussels.

Ms Quin: On Second Reading, the Opposition warmly welcomed the Bill and the accession treaty. Today's debates have not changed our minds. There have been many contributions and it seems that, especially among Conservative Members, the penny has dropped. There seems to be an understanding that the countries joining the European Union have European policies and domestic policies which have a great deal in common with Labour and rather less in common with the Government's views. That makes us, the Opposition, even keener about enlargement.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said that we risk not always taking the peoples of Europe with us in many of the matters that are discussed in the European Union and decided upon. He talked of the danger of a democratic gap between the European institutions and the people. It is important for us to demystify Europe and to make it relevant. We believe that the four new countries will help us to do that. Their commitment to open government—as a reality and not just rhetoric—is welcome.
The four applicant countries will bring considerable economic, social and environmental assets to the European Union, and they will help to make it more democratic. We welcome that, and we welcome them. We are pleased that the Bill is having its Third Reading.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Members' Allowances

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions should have effect—
Part A. Office costs allowance

(1) The limit on the office costs allowance—

(a) for any quarter in the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for a quarter in the immediately preceding year by 2.3 per cent; and
(b) for any quarter in any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for a quarter in the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(2) The limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Part of this Resolution.
(3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
(4) In this Part of this Resolution—

"quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January;
"year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April
(5) The references in paragraph (1)(b) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.
Part B. Supplementary London allowance

(1) The annual rate of the supplementary London allowance—

(a) for the period of three months beginning with 1st January 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual rate at which the allowance was paid immediately before that period by 1.5 per cent;
(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual rate determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph by 0.4 per cent; and
(c) for any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the rate for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(2) Any rate determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
(3) In this Part of this Resolution—

"the supplementary London allowance" means the allowance payable in accordance with paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary expenses;
"year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.
(4) The references in paragraph (1)(c) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.
Part C. Additional costs allowance
(1) The annual limit on the additional costs allowance—

(a) for the year beginning with 1st April 1993, should be the amount obtained by increasing the relevant limit by 1 per cent;
(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual limit determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph by 1.81 per cent; and

(c) for any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.


(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) of this Part of this Resolution the relevant limit is the amount equal to 144 times the Class A(i) London rate for a night's subsistence which took effect in the Civil Service on 1st August 1992.
(3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
(4) In this Part of this Resolution—
the additional costs allowance" means the allowance payable in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Resolution of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary expenses;
year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.
(5) The references in paragraph (1)(c) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.
Part D. Car mileage allowance
(1) Paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 20th July 1984 relating to the car mileage allowance should have effect—

(a) in relation to journeys commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1994, as if the rates per mile shown in the Table were the rates obtained by increasing each of the rates at which the allowance was previously paid by 2.3 per cent; and
(b) in relation to journeys commenced in any subsequent year, as if the rates per mile shown in the Table were the rates obtained by increasing each of the rates for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.


(2) Any rate per mile determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny.
(3) In this Part of this Resolution "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.
(4) The references in paragraph (1)(b) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.
Part E. Winding-up allowance
(1) The following provisions of this Part of this Resolution should have effect with respect to Members of this House who cease to be Members after 31st March 1994.
(2) Provision should be made under arrangements approved by the Speaker for an allowance to be made in respect of the expenses which, after a person has ceased to be a Member, are still required to be incurred in connection with his Parliamentary duties.
(3) The limit on that allowance should be four-thirds of the amount which, for the year in which that person ceases to be a Member, is the limit for that Member on the office costs allowance for a quarter in that year.
(4) The allowance should be paid to the person who has ceased to be a Member or, if he has died, to his personal representatives or a person nominated by him or selected under the arrangements approved by the Speaker.
(5) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
(6) In this Part of this Resolution—
quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January;
year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.


Part F. Recall of House during a recess
(1) The following provisions of this Part of this Resolution should have effect with respect to any occasion on which, during a recess, this House is recalled before the expected end of the recess.
(2) Members who attend the House during the recall should be reimbursed in respect of such extra costs which are wholly and exclusively attributable to the recall as are necessarily incurred by them in connection with travelling—

(a) from any place to London; and
(b) during any further recess immediately following the recall, from London to any place (provided that the purpose is to fulfil, before the expected end of that further recess, plans which were in existence before the recall).


(3) For the purposes of this part of this Resolution—

(a) "recess" means not only a period when Parliament stands prorogued to a specified date but also any period when this House stands adjourned to a specified date, and the references to the expected end of a recess are references to that specified date;
(b) "reimbursement", in the case of a Member, means the payment to the Member of the amount of the extra costs concerned and the payment to the Inland Revenue, on account of the income tax liability of the Member, of the difference between that amount and such a sum as, after deduction of tax at the marginal rate applicable to the Member, is equal to that amount; and
(c) "extra costs", in the case of a Member means costs in respect of which the Member cannot be reimbursed otherwise than by virtue of this Part of this Resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I inform the House that Madam Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Mr. Newton: In case anticipation has been aroused by the length and apparent weight of the motion, I should say at the outset that it represents no major or strategic change. I hope, conversely, that it does not create too much disappointment, either.
The first four parts of the motion replace uprating mechanisms that for various reasons have ceased to work with one that does work and can be expected to continue to work.
The fifth part meets a problem that has arisen because of the greater contractual commitments that Members these days are finding it necessary to enter into. It is merely designed to ensure that those commitments can be met if a Member dies or ceases to be a Member for any other reason.
The sixth part corrects an anomaly which has hitherto meant that, if Parliament is recalled during a recess, Ministers can receive help with the expenses incurred but Members cannot. I hasten to add that the correction takes the form of extending help to Members and not taking it away from Ministers.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will Members be reimbursed retrospectively for being called back? I was called back from Australia just over a year ago. That was hugely expensive.

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that it is not retrospective, and I cannot hold out hopes of anything other than sympathy to the hon. Gentleman this evening.
I will deal first briefly with the four existing allowances uprating mechanisms that have failed. The main one is, of course, the office costs allowance. That was formerly increased with effect from each April by reference to the pay of senior secretaries in the civil service. However, in the same way as the move to new civil service pay

arrangements broke the old automatic linkage for Members' pay, which we replaced last year, so this one too is breaking down and needs to be replaced.
The additional costs allowance, to help with the problem of Members needing accommodation in two locations, was formerly uprated in August by reference to civil service overnight subsistence rates. With greater delegation to individual Departments, that too has ceased to be viable.
The position in regard to its near relation, the London supplement, is a little more complicated. Essentially, however, it is that it used to be linked to the inner London weighting paid to civil servants. That is being replaced by a recruitment and retention allowance paid at the discretion of individual Departments—which, once again, makes it unusable as an uprating mechanism.
Lastly, the motor mileage allowance used to be tied, in a very specific and detailed way, to a schedule of motoring costs which is no longer available in a form which can be operated within the terms of the underlying resolution of the House. Here too, therefore, we need a new uprating mechanism.
Against that background, we spent some time considering the possibility of devising what might be called fancy new mechanisms which could be presented as in some way cleverly and specifically related to each of those different purposes. We concluded that all of them would be vulnerable to endless argument, and probably in due course once again be overtaken by change comparable with what has caused the present problem.
We therefore decided that far and away the simplest, most straightforward and most sensible solution was to link them all to the retail prices index. That also has what I, and I suspect the House, regard as the inestimable advantage of being the most durable solution—that is, the one most likely to remain workable on an automatic basis, and thus to avoid the need for the House to have to keep passing new resolutions.
That is what the first four parts of this resolution do: they provide for all four allowances to be uprated with effect from April 1994 by reference to the RPI, and henceforth to be uprated with effect from each succeeding April by reference to the RPI.
The only reason for the slight variation in the actual percentage increases from April 1994 is that we have also taken the opportunity to make another sensible simplification, which is to end the variations of uprating date and to put everything on to an April to March basis.
Thus, the office costs and motor mileage allowances rise by 2.3 per cent., which is the RPI increase from April 1993 to April 1994. The London supplement rises by 1.9 per cent., which represents 1.5 per cent. due from January 1994 in respect of an earlier increase in the civil service inner London weighting, plus 0.4 per cent. for the RPI increase in the three months from January. The additional costs allowance rises by a little more—2.8 per cent.—but only, I emphasise, because that relates not to 12 months but to a 20-month period since its last uprating in August 1992.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify a point relating to the office costs allowance with particular reference to the amount that we pay our secretaries or research assistants. In essence, is the increase being limited to 2.3 per cent.? If that is the case, it is lower than the increase being granted to the civil service, and that would be very unfair to our


secretaries, who do a great deal of work and who often have to work very long hours. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. Newton: I have explained, I hope fairly clearly—although I am moving fairly rapidly because I sense that it is probably the wish of the House that I should do that—that we have used the RPI as the most sensible and straightforward mechanism.
The office costs allowance, which was substantially increased a couple of years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will recall, embraces several other costs, such as equipment costs and others, which are not salary costs these days and which hon. Members meet. I judge that that mechanism remains the most sensible solution overall.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. Friend based his argument about the increase in the allowances on the basis that they were originally fair. However, the additional London living allowance is based on the average number of sittings days of the House multiplied by the allowance given to a civil servant for one night in London.
How is it possible for any hon. Member to rent a flat or have any living accommodation on the basis of such a calculation? Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that there was any fairness in that calculation in the first place? Will he confirm that all the allowances are paid against proven costs, as costs, to hon. Members, and there is no question of them being a benefit?

Mr. Newton: That is certainly the case, and I was going to say later that it is absolutely clear that allowances are generally paid against claims that the expenses have been wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance and pursuit of parliamentary duties.
On my hon. Friend's first point, it will ultimately be a matter for the judgment of the House, but I judged that some attempt to look strategically at this or any other allowance now would not have been the most sensible thing to do. I thought that it would be better to establish a sensible uprating mechanism.
In the process of what I am proposing, we have moved away from the position whereby the uprating depended on overnight subsistence costs, which in turn related partly to hotel charges. One reason why the additional costs allowance rose very little for a couple of years was the effect of the recession on hotel charges, which rose very little. The move to an RPI indexing system will at least ensure that my hon. Friend will receive a more sensible deal than he would otherwise have done.
I can sum up this part of my speech in two sentences. The purpose is simply to allow the limits on claims for expenses necessarily incurred by hon. Members in fulfilling their duties to be updated for inflation, and to ensure that they are annually updated in future. None of the increases, looked at on an annual basis, exceeds 2.3 per cent.
I turn now to the fifth leg of the resolution, which involves the winding-up allowance. That is the amount, currently a maximum of one sixth of the office costs allowance, which is intended to enable Members—or their executors where the issue unhappily arises as a result of death—to clear up their obligations after leaving the House. It has become clear that this amount is now inadequate in the light of, for example, prevailing contracts

of employment with staff and the periods of notice which are often required in relation to the increasing amount of equipment that Members have.
Having taken advice from the Fees Office, I now propose that the allowance should be set at a maximum of one third of the annual office costs allowance, although Members will see that, for technical reasons connected with the way that the basic allowance is defined, the motion is drafted in terms of four thirds of the quarterly allowance.
In addition, the motion widens the scope of costs that can be covered from purely secretarial to all necessary costs. I emphasise, of course, that, in common with the OCA, and indeed others, the new figure is a ceiling to which legitimate costs can be claimed, and not in any way an entitlement.
Finally, I come to part F of the resolution, which introduces a new allowance to cover the necessary expenses of Members returning to Westminster in the event of a recall of Parliament during a recess—not, I should say, that we are planning one. [Interruption.] We are planning a recess.
As I said earlier, the present position is that Ministers faced with a recall can have their expenses covered by their Departments, but no such protection is available to other Members. The motion proposes that Members faced by a recall during a recess should be covered for all costs
wholly and exclusively attributable to the recall",
which includes, assuming that time and plans make it reasonable, the expenses also of travelling to resume a holiday. This is not, of course, an allowance we would expect to be activated very often, but I think it a reasonable safeguard to introduce for Members who need or wish to attend the House in the event of a recall, and I hope hon. Members will agree with me.
Indeed, I need hardly say that I hope they will agree with, and support, the resolution as a whole. I believe it to be reasonable, realistic and restrained, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Paul Flynn: We are considering the recommendations in the shadow of recent events. We all recall what happened two years ago, when we took a decision, by a majority of the House, to increase the allowances paid by a large sum. That decision was unpopular outside the House, and the decisions that we take tonight will be seen in the twilight of the events that have taken place in the past three or four days. There is a great deal of cynicism about our status here. Most of it is unjustified, but we have to bear it in mind.
We heard tonight from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for the Liberal Democrats that an offer in excess of £10,000 was made to a Member of this House for secretly carrying out a small duty of booking rooms. That is the type of information that will be presented in the press tomorrow along with the recommendations that we make tonight. I believe that the recommendations are prudent and sensible.
We could put into our recommendations, if not tonight then on a future occasion, the same conditions that we lay down for other people who live off public money—those who live on income support. Those people have their ceiling of income support, as we have our recommended ceiling, which we have agreed. If they receive income in excess of that amount, of even a fiver a week, that amount is deducted pound for pound from their income support. In


order to defend our position, if income comes into our pockets for doing parliamentary duties, we should consider deducting that amount pound for pound from the amount that we receive.
When we took the decision to increase our allowances two years ago, 53 hon. Members opposed the increase. Those awkward 53 Members had substantial outside interests, which I believe brought them in a great deal of money. They opposed the increase, and I presume that they do not take the full allowance now. I believe that we are equal as Back-Bench Members of Parliament. We have agreed on a certain amount, and that should be the ceiling.

Mr. David Ashby: We are talking about the office costs allowance, which is the expense of running an office. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the money that he receives from the trade union, which goes for running his office in the constituency, should be deducted from his allowance? If hon. Members receive money to run the parliamentary office from other sources, the hon. Gentleman has a point. Most Labour Members receive large amounts of money from the unions to run their offices.

Mr. Flynn: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that I and many other hon. Members receive not a penny from a trade union or any other organisation. I believe that the 14 per cent. of Labour Members who receive sums of money from trade unions and commercial bodies should act in exactly the same way as the 85 per cent. of Conservative Members who receive such pay.
If the amount that the House decided was appropriate for the office costs allowance was applied to everyone, the House could take a more realistic decision on what the office costs allowance should be. Some Members voted for a low office costs allowance when they realised that vast amounts of other funds would come into their office to do exactly the same job that all the rest of us do.
We have to look at the matter with some realism, and recall the decision that we took two years ago. The many Members who opposed the increase two years ago should consider the amount of money that comes into them. We must restore respect to the House, which we all love. It is the centre of our lives. We regret the comments that are being made about the House and Members of the House.
We have to say that any money that comes in to us, wherever it comes from, whether it is for making speeches or acting in the long term for a company, should be set against our allowance. As has been said, there is little difference between someone being paid a set amount to ask a single question, and someone being paid a substantial amount to act on behalf of a certain company over a period of years.
There is another point, which has probably been made. We have had a debate on the pensions industry and a debate on the Trade Marks Bill in the Chamber in recent months. In both debates, only one Conservative Member spoke who did not have a financial interest in the subject. Those hon. Members were speaking not on behalf of their constituents or their party, but on behalf of companies outside. Neither a trade union party nor a Transport and General Workers party stood at the election. There was not

a Legal and General party—or an Ian Greer party—standing at the general election. People voted for the Labour and Conservative parties.
We have degraded our own democracy, and we have prostituted it. We have become so used to the atmosphere of soft corruption in the House that Members are shocked when they hear that what they are doing is wrong, and deeply wrong.

Sir Peter Fry: I do not intend to follow what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said. My inclination is to say that any Member of Parliament who feels that his allowances are too high does not have to claim them. Anybody who feels that he is paid too much can pay it back to the Chancellor, who would be delighted to receive it.
My comments will be confined to the car mileage allowance. I say to the Leader of the House, with respect, that I believe that the car mileage allowance is rather different from other allowances. It was historically fixed to a scale of mileage allowances proposed by the Royal Automobile Club, but we know that that scale of allowances has long since disappeared. The problem has been how we are to peg the car allowance to a more realistic figure.
The fact that the original figure upon which we now base the allowance is years out of date does not give me the utmost confidence that we have the right formula. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that, perhaps unlike other allowances, the amount of money that is required to run a car could well rise, and, if the Chancellor keeps to what he said in the previous Budget statement, it will rise considerably faster than the cost of living.
Therefore, we shall progressively find that, unless some other things happen, Members will be increasingly expected to provide more out of their other taxed income to use on the car on parliamentary business. The only way that that can be avoided is to ensure that, when the Inland Revenue comes to the point of deciding whether any of the car allowance should be taxed, it should take into account what the cost is, and raise the amount that it allows before tax applies.
The present system for those who are now roughly paying the full amount of tax on the mileage allowance is such that, in many cases, Members are literally at break-even point. Certainly there is no question of their making any additional income from the car allowance. That makes it more important that we are careful in that respect.
If we accept my right hon. Friend's recommendations tonight, does he not agree that a message should be imparted to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the figure that they accept before tax is due on the mileage allowance is also altered to take into account not just the rise in cost of living but the actual rise in the cost of running a car while on parliamentary business?

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his report to the House. It is never the right time to talk about allowances or salaries. I know full well that, despite the interventions from one or


two Members, what has been done tonight shall be seen in the press as being a payment to the Member, not a payment relating to costs incurred.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: indicated assent.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member nods his head, and he made a similar point a little earlier.
I know that that will happen. We are rightly bringing some relief to our hard-worked secretaries and research assistants, who are absolutely necessary for us to run our offices. It is pleasing to hear tonight that, in future, there will be an automatic allowance based on the retail prices index.
Speaking as a Back Bencher, and not in my position as chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I should like to ask that thought be given in future to ensuring that that allowance is not part of a Member's allowance, and that secretaries and research assistants are paid as though they were in the civil service. That would not prevent Members from choosing their own research assistants or secretaries, but it would mean that they were paid the right salaries, based on a civil service grade. It might also offer them career prospects.
I believe that, if a Member dies or retires, his staff should be kept on if possible. New Members arriving after an election could then select staff with experience. These people would also be available to help out Members whose secretaries were ill or on holiday—a better system altogether.
It would be good to have a House personnel officer to advise us on these matters. What I propose would also remove the uncertainties surrounding what research assistants and secretaries should be paid; they would be paid against a definite grade.
Perhaps the employer's element of our assistants' national insurance contributions could be paid, too. That would remove from Members the difficult choices of how much they can afford to pay in salary increases for their hard-worked staff, or whether to spend the money on office equipment. That too would afford us some relief.
The rest of the proposals are correct, in my submission. The change to the supplementary London allowance will help Members with London constituencies. I agree also with what has been said about the additional costs that may be associated with the car mileage allowance. It is right, furthermore, to equate Members with Ministers when it comes to reimbursement for the costs involved in a recall of Parliament during the recess.
I know from conversations with the Leader of the House that one of the difficulties has been finding a civil service grade to which to attach these figures. Now we are to base them on the retail prices index, so we shall not have to go through the whole process again. That is welcome.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I know that it has not been easy to achieve what he has done—there is never a right time, as I said—but the proposals in respect of the office costs allowance will, I hope, benefit our staff.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Leader of the House assure us that the car mileage allowance policy is consistent with Government policies on reducing car use, and compatible with the idea of using the smallest, most fuel-efficient cars that are commensurate with our duties?

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the position of staff who are off sick or on maternity leave. Our current allowances do not adequately cover this problem. I recognise the difficulties, but increasingly Members' allowances are fully committed, and that can put Members whose staff are off sick or on maternity leave under pressure.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me a commitment tonight, but I ask him for an assurance that he will review an arrangement which has been in place now for a number of years, and which should be updated.

Mr. Newton: Other hon. Members have raised with me the same point as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has just mentioned, and I am looking into it. I am sorry that I have not managed to find a solution to put before the House tonight.
I have taken note of other hon. Members' points. I have to say to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that I view his points with a little less sympathy than some of the others that were put to me.
I shall certainly ensure that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) is drawn to the attention of those to whom it was directed, and I would say to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that I am a member of the Government, so I regard what I have suggested as being consistent with Government policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Members' Interests

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House approves the proposals in paragraph 18 of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker wishes me to announce that she has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie).

Mr. Newton: This is now the sixth speech I have made on House of Commons issues since Monday and I shall try to keep this one reasonably crisp and brief.
I can be brief because the purpose of the resolution is simply to implement recommendations from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, whose Chairman will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to set out in more detail the Committee's proposals and the reasons for them.
The House will probably need little reminding of the background. In March 1992, the Committee produced a major report on the registration and declaration of Members' interests. That report was debated on the Adjournment in June 1992 and formally approved by resolution of the House in June last year.
Most of the changes, which were substantial, have proved acceptable and appear to have worked without difficulty. That cannot, however, be said to have been the case in relation to the new requirement that Members who are members of Lloyd's should not only register that fact, but also list their syndicate numbers for the current year and their membership of any syndicates which remain unclosed. This requirement has led to difficulty well known to the House and complaints from a number of Members who argued strongly that those requirements went beyond what was reasonable compared with what is required in other fields and exposed them to intrusive, inaccurate and damaging speculation about the details of their financial affairs.
The Committee, therefore, and in my view rightly, decided to carry out a further inquiry and to make another report to the House. It is the recommendations of that report for further changes, having examined those complaints, that are the subject of this motion.
Essentially, the Committee has accepted that the requirements introduced last year have indeed inadvertently upset the balance between the accepted need for disclosure and the accepted need for hon. Members and their families to a proper degree of personal privacy. Its recommendations seek to restore what it believes to be reasonable balance while still going beyond the requirements of earlier years, and at the same time to take account of new developments in the Lloyd's market, in particular the introduction of what are known as members' agent pooling arrangements—MAPA—which on their own would clearly have necessitated some reconsideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the Chairman of the Committee, and his Committee performed a valuable service to the House in being willing to look again at what is appropriate in this difficult area and what they have proposed deserves the support of the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Bill Michie to move the amendment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the Leader of the House actually read the report? What about the deprecation by the Select Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are not questions for the Chair. I call Mr. Michie to move the amendment.

Mr. Bill Michie: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'takes note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353); but considers that the existing rule on the registration of Lloyd's syndicate numbers is reasonable and necessary in the interests of transparency and that all honourable Members who are underwriting members of Lloyd's should comply with it.'.
May I first express my gratitude to Madam Speaker for allowing the amendment to be debated? I do not consider that the motion on the Order Paper in any way reflects what was discussed and voted on in Committee. That is why I tabled the amendment.
The debate took place over many months, going through a tremendous amount of detail interviewing individual hon. Members and the people of Lloyd's on the new arrangements to apply after 1991. The motion before us tonight does not reflect the issues that were before the Committee.
There were two totally separate issues. First, some hon. Members did not comply with the will of the House. We had to write to them and the Chairman, who is here this evening, had to talk to them. We had written submissions from some, and none from others. We gave them yet another opportunity to explain why they had refused to comply with the will of the House.
The House also gave the Committee the job of considering the changes that had taken place in the Lloyd's market since 1991–92. Even now, I have no doubt whatever that those two issues were meant to be separate and should have remained so, although obviously the Committee can deal with more than one issue at a time.
Slowly but surely, however, the Committee began to merge the two issues. I protested more than once. Finally, on Tuesday 24 May—I stand to be corrected, but I doubt that I am wrong—the issue of how the report should be framed was discussed again, and
the prevailing view in the Committee appeared to favour the Chairman's proposal of a single Report divided clearly into two parts, although Mr. Michie protested strongly that this ran counter to the understanding on which the Committee's original decision to take evidence from Lloyd's had been based.
We knew that there had been changes in the Lloyd's rules and their interpretation. No one doubted that the implications for the future had to be considered; but that had nothing to do with the fact that certain right hon. and hon. Members had flatly refused to comply with the rules of the House. Any mere Back Bencher who did that in any other context would be crucified. But the Committee went on and on; excuse after excuse was given for why the details could not be given. It mentioned intrusion into personal finances, embarrassment to families and so forth.
Hon. Members may ask what difference the merging of the two reports makes. I believe that it makes a tremendous


difference. After all our deliberations, however, we ended up with the bland statement on the Order Paper—not a reprimand for hon. Members who were guilty of contempt of the House, but a recommendation that actually suits those hon. Members.
It is not just a case of "Let's look at the whole thing and come up with a consensus." No one reading the Order Paper would believe the way in which the report was worded. It is in two parts: the first deals with hon. Members who did not comply with the rule, and the second with the debate about whether we should change the rules in accordance with the new rules in the Lloyd's market. It states that
12 Members who had registered an interest…had failed to comply with that additional requirement…The other nine Members have still not provided the required information; and two further Members have subsequently registered an interest in Lloyd's but have similarly failed to supply their syndicate numbers.
Ultimately, 11 hon. Members had failed to comply with the wish of the House.
The report states:
The Registrar and the Chairman of this Committee have written successively to all these Members, drawing their attention to the relevant provision in the House's rules and making a formal request to them to supply details of their syndicate numbers. Eight of the 11 Members subsequently accepted an invitation to give evidence to the Committee.
There is therefore no question but that the Members' failure to provide the required information is the result of decision rather than inadvertence or any other cause.
The Registrar has informed the Committee that two of the named Members have submitted information about their syndicates to him, while withholding permission for the inclusion of the information in the published Register. We consider that this action can in no way be regarded as satisfactory compliance with the rule of the House.
The Chairman's recommendation in part 1 of the report states:
Whatever the circumstances, the refusal by individual Members to comply with a rule which has been agreed by the House sets a bad precedent and is to be deprecated. We accordingly draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Members named in paragraph 3 above have refused to register their Lloyd's syndicate numbers as required by the House's resolutions of 28 June 1993.
That is damning.
The motion tabled by the Leader of the House states:
That this House approves the proposals in paragraph 18 of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353).
How can that be called a reprimand for people who told the Committee on more than one occasion to mind its own business and that it was out of order? Conservative Members are shaking their heads. I can go over this chapter and verse. I have all the drafts of what was said. It is great stuff. I will do that in private because I do not want to go on too long.
The issue of contempt has been swept under the carpet. We are changing the rules in accordance with the wishes of those who are guilty of contempt. That is what the motion means.
I do not doubt that in the future we may have to consider the new rules of the Lloyd's market and that that may be complicated. However, if because of MAPA and the change of rules we make changes because people might be embarrassed or because people are misled or misinterpret what the syndicate numbers mean, we will be making changes before things are proved. I say that because the syndicate numbers have not been registered and we do not know whether it will be embarrassing.
The Members finally said that this was intrusive and that there was a misinterpretation. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that the press reports were wild, totally out of proportion and inaccurate. The strange thing is that he had not registered the syndicate numbers with the House. The few Members who did register the numbers did not suffer any embarrassment. If the press reports were wild, inaccurate and embarrassing, it was because Members did not provide the information to enable more accurate reports to be made. It is strange that the only people who have been embarrassed by the press are those who have flatly refused to give their syndicate numbers.
Let us look at registration. We had the Lloyd's people at the Committee. The MAPA business is very complicated. It is far beyond the wit of the average person. [Interruption.] I have to concede that I do not have the same great wisdom as members of Lloyd's

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They cannot be that wise.

Mr. Michie: My hon. Friend is right. They cannot be that wise because they put their money on a horse without knowing which horse it was and they did not know whether it came last or even ran at all. That is part of the problem. Then they go bleating to the bookie saying, "Can I have my money back because I was misinformed." Imagine somebody going back to the bookie after the Grand National. It is nonsense. They shout foul all the time.
Whatever happens tonight, at least it will be on record that some right hon. and hon. Members have got away scot free by basically saying to the House, "Get stuffed. We are greater and more powerful than you are." One of the arrogant statements that was made cannot be seen in the report because the wording has been changed. I have checked it with the Clerk. He said, "I think that I heard something like that." One of the right hon. Members said—

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Clerk stated that the Committee record has been changed. Is not that outrageous?

Madam Speaker: Provided that they are in order, I am not responsible for the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Many outrageous statements are made in the House.

Mr. Michie: Coming from the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), that point of order was a joke. I am not into slimming foods and things of that nature, so we shall not get into that subject, on which he did a good job the other week.
I did not say that the Clerk had misinterpreted, misunderstood or changed the wording. I know what happens in every Committee of that nature and a lot of it is confidential. I repeat that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that, if the Select Committee probed too deeply into matters of this nature, men of substance may be disinclined to stand for Parliament. What arrogance, when one thinks about it.
The record now states that people of importance may not want to stand for Parliament, or something like that. Was that a threat to the Committee that it should not ask too many questions because, if it did, some people might not stand for Parliament? That is good news to some extent


because some of those so-called men of substance have only one interest, although not necessarily those in this place. I shall not suggest what that interest may be.
I come from an ordinary background, as did many hon. Members on both sides of House. We do not have to tell the Committee not to probe into our financial affairs. I am prepared to give evidence on anything, which I have not had much occasion to do. But I would not dare threaten the House by saying, "Do not probe too deep, otherwise great people like me may not stand for election to the House." For goodness sake, that is absolute arrogance.
The excuse is that, because of developments at Lloyd's and the difficulty of interpreting information, the latter have not been tested. Time and again, Committee members discussed the matter with Lloyd's representatives, who said that because of the new MAPA rule, complicated as it may be, a member may not at any one time know where his money is.

Mr. Bill Etherington: They do not know where it is themselves.

Mr. Michie: They do not even know where they are.
Members, therefore, cannot declare an interest because of their syndicate numbers. When I asked the representatives from Lloyd's whether it was possible for any member to know at any time where his money was invested, the answer was, "Yes, if they ask." That may be the case, but I still make the point that a Member should be responsible for declaring that to the Committee because that is the rule in the House.
I am not convinced by any stretch of the imagination that the good and great are right on this issue. Some might say that they are the good, the bad and the ugly, but I shall stick with the good and great. That those great people have special rights and special privileges which go beyond the will of the House is unacceptable.
Not enough time has been given for the present rules to be tried and tested. They should be given more time to work before the House considers anything else. If we pass the motion, we shall no longer reprimand those people who are in contempt and we shall concede their demands and their threats. No other group of people could get away with that. I beg hon. Members to accept my amendment for the sake of the House and democracy.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry that a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests should propose an amendment to the motion. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) is an assiduous attender of our meetings and it is a shame that he should find himself at odds with the other members. As I hope to demonstrate, his serious charge should not be supported by hon. Members from whichever party.
If the hon. Member's charges against the Committee's findings are as serious as he claims them to be, why did not the Opposition table an amendment? I suggest that they did not do so because the findings of the Committee were based on the evidence put before us. As I shall mention later, when we consider proceedings, resolutions and rules involved in the Register of Members' Interests and the

manner in which we declare those interests, it is very important that they should be seen to be fair and reasonable.
We have made it clear that the report is divided into two parts. Why publish them separately? What is wrong with publishing the two separate parts in one report so that hon. Members can ascertain our attitude towards those who did not abide by the obligations that we think were placed on them and, at the same time, see whether there is any justification, as a result of any non-compliance, for changing the rules? As I said, the changes that we have made stand four-square with the evidence put before us. If that were not the case, we should not have suggested them.
I shall be as brief as I possibly can. I do not want to go into too much detail because everything has been published, and I am sure that any hon. Member who wishes to raise an issue will do so. The hour is late; it is a short debate; and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. We have now had the experience of seeing the printed entries in the register in which many hon. Members have disclosed their syndicate numbers. They are complicated and, in some cases, out of scale with the rest of the register. The introduction of the members' agent pooling arrangements—MAPAs—at Lloyd's at the start of this year was a development not foreseen by the Committee when it made its original recommendation in 1992 and it has greatly increased the potential complications, as I shall show.
The purpose and effect of MAPAs is to enable members of Lloyd's to spread their risk over a much wider range of insurance syndicates without increasing their overall financial commitment, just as an investor in the stock market can spread his risk by investing in a unit trust rather than in a small selection of shares. A member of Lloyd's who joined a MAPA this year will be participating in a minimum of 30 syndicates in that way alone. Next year, he may join another MAPA or the MAPA itself might change its syndicate content, but this year's MAPA will remain open for at least two more years so, under the present rule, the syndicate in it would have to remain in the hon. Member's register entry all that time, along with any new MAPAs or syndicates that he joined subsequently.
The net result was described to the Committee by a witness from Lloyd's, by which I mean an official from Lloyd's. He said that
the entries are likely to get larger and larger as the years go on, as more and more detail may fall to be disclosed…becoming more and more full of numbers.
The Committee therefore sought an alternative rule that would provide information about an hon. Member's participation in the Lloyd's market, beyond the mere fact that he is an underwriting member of Lloyd's, but in a way that is more concise and more comprehensible to the layman than a long list of syndicate numbers would be.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In reality, is a MAPA any different from a syndicate? A MAPA could have a number in the same way that a syndicate can have a number, but, whereas a syndicate relates to an individual portfolio, a MAPA relates to a portfolio that might include as few as 30 or as many as 60 syndicates. Why reverse the decision? Why not simply change the registration requirement whereby the MAPA is registered along with any syndicates to which an hon. Member belongs?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That would result in a bunch of numbers from which one would not be able to ascertain anything. I shall explain that as I go along, because it needs to be put clearly to the House.
The purpose of the Committee's proposal is to ensure that hon. Members who underwrite specific categories of insurance business at Lloyd's disclose those categories in their register entries in future. That is what we recommend.

Sir Ralph Howell: Will my hon. Friend now answer two questions that I have asked him in several letters? The first question is: what was the purpose of the request for members of Lloyd's to give numbers? What use could his Committee possibly make of those numbers? The second question is: what possible use can the Committee make of the new headings under winch he asks us to record our underwriting?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The purpose is as follows. To say that one is a member of Lloyd's does not reveal whether there is a particular emphasis in the business that one does with Lloyd's. If there were a concentration of a Member's investments in one particular aspect of insurance—aviation, say—it would stand out in the Register of Members' Interests that his principal interest was aviation.
As I explained earlier, after the report was published the unit trust concept, with MAPAs, emerged, and that made the question of registration gobbledegook.

Mr. Bill Michie: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I really must proceed, because I am sure that plenty of other Members on both sides of the House want to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I want to follow the steps that we took, so that they are clearer not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) but to other hon. Members who have not followed the subject as closely as others have.
The second point openly acknowledged in the report is that the Committee has listened to the vigorous arguments and objections that have been levelled at the new rule by colleagues who are members of Lloyd's. The hon. Member for Heeley referred to that fact. Some will say that we were wrong to do that, because it sets a bad precedent. They say that in future Members who find a certain rule of registration troublesome will have only to complain loudly enough and the Committee will change it. That anxiety was expressed by members of the Committee when we discussed the issue, and I want hon. Members to know that I understand their fears. However, in this case I prefer the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in evidence to the Committee when he referred to its willingness to see "sweet reason".
The Committee certainly does not accept all the criticisms levelled both at us personally and at the new rule. In particular, we do not accept the idea that the new rule was to blame for the speculation in the media about the financial losses of individual Members. The financial and legal problems affecting Lloyd's have led to that speculation, and I fear that they will continue to do so, irrespective of any change that we may make tonight. If the rule is to blame for the speculation, why have those who have complied with it also suffered from speculation—even more than some who have not complied, it could be argued?
Nevertheless, the Committee acknowledges that information about syndicate numbers can be misused, because by combining information from the register about a Member's syndicate participation with information available at Lloyd's about the performance of each syndicate, it is possible to speculate about the financial position of individual Members.
Speculation on the basis of that information alone is bound to be wildly inaccurate, because no information is published about a name's financial commitment to any syndicate, or about any stop loss policies that he may have. It is important for us all to remember that we do not want the register to be used as cover for such misuse. It was never intended to provide detailed information about Members' personal wealth or poverty. The rules have always sought to strike a balance between the right of the public to know about the outside financial interests that may influence the conduct of an elected representative and the right of that individual Member of Parliament to a reasonable degree of personal privacy.
I accept what the Lord President of the Council said in opening the debate—that, although it was not the original intention, in the context of MAPAs the rule has inadvertently upset that balance. That is the other main reason for changing it.
I now refer to section 1 of the report and to the 11 hon. Members who have not complied with the existing rule. Paragraph 7 makes clear the Committee's view of their conduct. In recommending the change of rule, the Committee is not condoning that conduct. Speaking personally, I think that I was more influenced by the reasoned letters and representations I received from members of Lloyd's who had complied with the recommendations of the Committee.
The arguments in favour of changing the rule outweigh the danger that we may be represented as having given in to a campaign of non-compliance. There is another important reason. We who serve on the Committee recognise that our prime duty is to uphold the integrity of the Committee so that it may continue to enjoy the confidence of the House. That confidence depends on our being fair and reasonable. I hope that the House will accept that we have been both and will approve the motion.

Mr. Peter Hain: In supporting the amendment, I must tell the House that I believe that the Committee was, unfortunately, sold a pup by Lloyd's in the representations that were made to it. I say that with no lack of respect for the Committee members and certainly I have considerable respect for the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). It is simply a fact that Lloyd's, with a great deal of sophistry and a great deal of self-interest within the House, persuaded the Committee to adopt a course that was fundamentally wrong.
It is appropriate to note that Lloyd's has been aptly described as the home of unfettered insider dealing. It is unfettered by the House; it is unfettered by the Department of Trade and Industry; it is unfettered by the Financial Services Act 1986; and it is unfettered by effective rules of its own. It is effectively a law unto itself.
It is important that, as hon. Members have discretion to choose which syndicates they belong to or leave, their membership of syndicates should be disclosed. If they are members of unit trust arrangements, called the members'


agent pooling arrangements—MAPA—those should be named as well. Disclosure provides a natural deterrent to any allegations of insider trading. It is particularly important that that membership is publicly known because that deterrent can then be exercised.
That point is especially important against the background of the recent controversy within Lloyd's. It has been alleged that hon. Members and others who have been insider traders with Lloyd's have been given preferential treatment while other external names, who have often been driven to destitution, bankruptcy or even suicide, have had all the losses from the catastrophic syndicates dumped on them, often as a result of certain members being taken off duff syndicates and other more gullible members being pushed on to them, or as a result of the losses being paid or credited in return for improper secret political influence.
The knowledge that such transactions show up because syndicate members have to be revealed in the Register of Members' Interests is a deterrent to that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may scoff. There is a central contradiction that they cannot duck. Of the 51 Conservative Members who are Lloyd's names and who, I believe, have cumulative losses totalling £22 million, none has suffered destitution, bankruptcy or the tremendous losses that other external names on exactly the same syndicates with exactly the same lines in them have suffered. The Committee should have brought its attention to bear on that contradiction by maintaining syndicate registration.
The argument has been made that it is somehow an intrusion of privacy to disclose such information. If one has a copy of the Lloyd's blue book—it is not too difficult to obtain and every insider in the market has access to it—it is easy to determine on which syndicates hon. Members or any other Lloyd's names are placed. It is quite easy to determine that from inside the market. The question that the House must answer is why it is being denied that knowledge. Why are the public, through the House, being denied that knowledge because of the way in which the Committee is taking those rights to knowledge away from them?
It has been suggested by Lloyd's—the Committee has bought the argument—that it would convey sufficient information to satisfy the principles of disclosing hon. Members' pecuniary interests if they declared to the register the various types of insurance business that their syndicates wrote in that name.
That might seem reasonable at first glance, were it not for the fact that the ability of Lloyd's to categorise insurance business—I refer to the businesses listed in the annexe to the report—is notoriously unreliable, as well as being uninformative; it is recognised as such in the market. Lloyd's in fact ceased allocating the main categories of insurance for each syndicate in 1991.
The traditional allocation of the four categories of marine, aviation, motor and non-marine has broken down. Lloyd's realised that so many supposedly marine syndicates were, in fact, writing non-marine and aviation business, often at crazy rates half the size of those quoted by the normal aviation syndicates. As it had less and less true marine premiums coming in, Lloyd's realised that its categories were becoming a total farce. Lloyd's has

apparently sought to re-present that worn out farce in this context and it is regrettable that the Committee has accepted its argument.
It is also important that we recognise that it does not necessarily matter which syndicate an hon. Member has been in in any one year. It is equally important to be able to identify whether an hon. Member has been removed from a particular syndicate, perhaps just before a year in which it incurred particular losses. I shall return to that point.
The ability to compare one year's membership of a syndicate with the next year's is absolutely essential if we are to see whether any insider trading is going on and whether hon. Members are being treated in a preferential way as compared with other Lloyd's names. That is essential because there have been thousands upon thousands of huge claims from all over the world in connection with asbestos and pollution against some Lloyd's syndicates, which have been concealed from Lloyd's insiders and from ordinary investors since 1981.
Those claims have not been settled; nor have they been withdrawn. In many instances, the original syndicate members, sometimes true insiders on so-called baby syndicates, to which I shall refer in a minute, have managed to pass the liability on to new names who are not, as it were, as in on the game as those insiders who have rigged it for themselves.
Some hon. Members—not necessarily with their knowledge—have been removed from a particular syndicate the year before part of a large liability has been unveiled. There are at least three hon. Members of this House—I have notified them in the proper way, as required by the protocol of the House, that I shall refer to them in the debate—who are on preferred or so-called baby syndicates.

Mr. Roger Knapman: rose—

Mr. Hain: A baby syndicate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] A baby syndicate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I am not giving way at this point. A baby syndicate has been likened to a baby kangaroo. The insiders involved in running a larger syndicate often set up a small one out of the profits of the larger syndicate.

Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Half the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to have suggested that we have received preferential treatment and the other half that we have lost £22 million. Is it possible that the hon. Gentleman is not making any sense at all?

Madam Speaker: As I said earlier, I hear a lot of comments in the House. It takes quite a lot to shock me. But the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) is obviously not giving way.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to imply that a number of us have been engaged in some kind of insider dealing? If that is so, it is a very great reflection on some of us.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Neath said that he would mention names, but that he had already let the Members concerned know that he was going to raise the matter. Is that quite clear? I have already been deceived once today in this House on that matter. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has informed Members?

Mr. Hain: I certainly have, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Hain: I put notices on the board to tell hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Earlier this evening and well in time. If I can continue—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hain: I was seeking to explain, Madam Speaker. I have not made any particular allegations of insider trading against any one Member so far.
As I was saying, a baby syndicate has been likened to a baby kangaroo. The insiders involved in running the larger syndicate often set up a smaller one that is run out of the pocket of the larger one.
There are many who have been badly hit by the shenanigans within the Lloyd's market. It has been difficult to expose that, not least because of the vested interests in the House. Those interests have prevented disclosure of what has been going on. Typically, there have been over 1,000 ordinary investors on the large syndicate and only the main underwriters, fellow directors and their families and friends on the preference baby syndicate. They have relied on the large syndicate being run by the same underwriter to cream off profits properly due to the members of the larger syndicate and divert them to the baby syndicate. That is important in the context of the debate.
Three Members were on three separate preference baby syndicates over the past seven years. One such was on syndicate 728, which was preferenced out of the coffers of syndicate 658. The best business was channelled into the preference syndicate, the baby, which made £1.5 million for every £1 million channelled into it in 1982. Both the hon. Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) were favoured in the preference syndicate over a number of years. I do not say that that was with their knowledge. I do not say that they were consulted about it. I am making no allegation to that effect.

Mr. David Evennett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not advised by the hon. Gentleman that he would mention my situation. I think that he has breached the protocol of the House.

Madam Speaker: When did the hon. Member for Neath put the notices on the board?

Mr. Hain: I think that it was just after 10 o'clock, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that the board closes at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Hain: I put them on the board. I was not sure when the debate was coming up. I put them on the board at the earliest opportunity that I had.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knew precisely that the debate would take place today. He knows also that the board closes at 10 o'clock. He might have made better endeavours than he has to inform the Members that he is now naming. I would suggest that he proceeds with great caution and care because he has not taken care to inform the Members that he is about to name.

Mr. Hain: I shall certainly proceed with caution, Madam Speaker. I apologise if notice was not given in advance. It was not due to any intention on my part not to give notice.
As I was saying, I am not alleging that any individual Member knowingly found himself or deliberately placed himself on preferential baby syndicates. I believe that those responsible in the Lloyd's market—members' agents and others responsible for running the market—have deliberately ensured that no Member was bankrupted or suffered the enormous losses that other external names suffered. Therefore, they were put on preferential baby syndicates and given preferential treatment in other ways. There are a number of examples.

Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that no Member, as a member of Lloyd's, has not been put in a baby syndicate. I have no knowledge of baby syndicates and I have never been in a baby syndicate.

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.

Mr. Hain: May I move on to explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] The House deserves to hear the argument.
Let us take the case of Lord and Lady Archer. They were on syndicate 162 and the Sturge syndicates, 206 and 209, which had concealed asbestosis claims for several years until eventually the claims and the resulting losses were disclosed in 1990. However, both Lord and Lady Archer came off syndicates 206 and 209 before the worst happened. Had they remained on them, along with all the uniformed members, they would have been asked to pay £63,116 with an expected further deterioration of £206,750. That is calculated from the Chatset guide to syndicate run-offs—

Sir Anthony Durant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a debate about Lloyd's; it is a debate about the Register of Members' Interests. We are wandering far from the register. It is not for me to offer guidance, but I believe that we are now a long way from the register.

Madam Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which I believe is genuine. I cautioned the hon. Member for Neath about what he has to say. He might look at the motion on the Order Paper and refer to it rather more often than he is doing.

Mr. Hain: I will certainly do that Madam Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir. E. Heath) has been on syndicate 573. Had he remained on that syndicate, he would have suffered a further loss of £20,652 with an additional deterioration, as estimated under the Chatset league tables, of £37,500. Most fortunately for him, he was advised to come off in time.
If we consider the case of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that you had ruled that, because the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) had put the notices on the board after 10 pm, he should proceed with caution. He has just mentioned another Member of this House.

Madam Speaker: I asked the hon. Member for Neath to proceed with caution. I have now asked him a second


time. He has mentioned another Member who has not presumably been informed because the Members concerned have received no information from the hon. Member for Neath that he was to raise these matters. If the hon. Member for Neath has not informed those Members, he is in breach of our procedures. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the motion, which refers to the Register of Members' Interests, and not to individual cases.

Mr. Hain: You will advise me if my interpretation is incorrect, Madam Speaker, but I think that the amendment, which I support, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), refers to the fact that syndicate details should still be declared in the register. If it is no longer possible to list the syndicate numbers, all sorts of problems will arise, not least the failure to address exactly what has been happening in the Lloyd's market. That is why I am giving examples to support my case and to show why that is so important.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Neath is moving very far from the point that he is really making. I hope that he will come to order and make his points correctly for the remainder of his address.

Mr. Hain: In that case, may I turn to the chairman of Lloyd's, Mr. David Rowland? He was obviously very well informed. He avoided liability on syndicates 437, 533, 582, 312—

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This debate is meant to deal with the Register of Members' Interests. Are Mr. David Rowland and Lord Archer Members of this House?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Neath has now strayed very wide of the motion. He has taken a great deal of interest in the subject over many months and I am therefore sure that he is quite capable of speaking to the motion before the House. I ask him to do that now or I shall have to take action against him. I am giving the hon. Gentleman every opportunity. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman has been interested in the subject for many months. He should now be quite capable of speaking to the motion and the amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hain: Madam Speaker, you will advise me if I am straying out of line.

Madam Speaker: That is precisely the case. The hon. Gentleman is straying far too wide.

Mr. Hain: If you will forgive me and advise me, Madam Speaker, I will continue, if you will allow me, to address the House.
Whether or not I have presented the case as adequately as I could have is a matter of judgment, but the House is refusing to face up to the fact that out there, in the Lloyd's market and among the public, is a well-founded suspicion that Members of the House and their friends in the Lloyd's markets have protected themselves against incurring the huge losses that would have resulted in bankruptcy and, in the case of hon. Members, their removal from the House. That is my central charge.
It is important that syndicate membership should still be required to be stated under the rules of the House—a

requirement that my hon. Friend's amendment seeks to restore. If that information is not available for public inspection and the House's policing, all sorts of insider trading and deals whereby Members and others are placed on baby syndicates and given preferential treatment will become the norm. The House will be unable properly to scrutinise the matter because it will be shrouded in the mystique and mystery and the complications and complexity that surround the Lloyd's market. That is my central charge.
As you, Madam Speaker, have rightly said, I have sought diligently and honestly to address the issue over a number of years. In a number of ways my attempts have been thwarted. Tonight I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a number of Members have been preferentially treated. I have mentioned some of them. If I am to be prevented from mentioning others, I accept your guidance and ruling on that, Madam Speaker. I certainly do not wish to be ruled out of order.
There are still a large number of Members who are Lloyd's names and who have been given preferential treatment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I would have preferred to carry on and give the details, but it has not been possible for me to do so. The House does itself no credit by introducing—through the Select Committee's procedures and under the rules of the register—new requirements for disclosure, then when it becomes clear that those requirements for disclosing syndicate membership are revealing to the public all the insider trading that has been going on—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May we have a ruling on something which is quite significant? You ruled that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) cannot proceed in the way that he wishes. Are we to presume that in future debates we can no longer refer to the personal circumstances of individuals when we are advocating a general case, in principle, on an issue? Are we now to be precluded from that—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I can answer him. No, that was not my ruling. My ruling was that an hon. Member should inform another hon. Member when he or she is to be mentioned. In this case, the information was placed on the letter board at about the time that it was to close. That is why I said that it was not just to refer to individual Members because they had not been informed. That was the ruling that I gave.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are we to presume that this is now to be a rule? Are we to presume that unless an hon. Member has placed notice of reference on the board an hon. Member cannot make a reference? I understand that that is a new movement—previously, it was custom and courtesy to do so. Is it now a rule?

Madam Speaker: I believe that it is the custom and courtesy of the House, particularly when a motion on the Order Paper has been there for some time and an hon. Member knows that he or she wishes to speak, for that hon. Member to give ample warning to those hon. Members to


whom reference is to be made. That is common courtesy. It is because that courtesy has obviously not been shown today that I believe that it is correct, right and in accord with natural justice—which is what I am concerned about—that those hon. Members should not be mentioned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The ruling that we are given now is very important. A precedent is being set tonight—[Interruption.] It is—a precedent is being set because a rule is being defined. I do not object to the point that you make, Madam Speaker. I understand precisely what you are saying. My point is that you are now saying that in future, if we do not comply with the custom, practice and courtesy, we will not be able to raise matters. That is a rule.

Madam Speaker: I have not said that at all. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Hansard tomorrow, he will see clearly what I have said. I hate repeating myself, but I have said that it is the custom and courtesy of this House for an hon. Member, when referring to other Members, to let those Members know. In this case, the motion was on the Order Paper some time ahead. The hon. Member for Neath knew that he wished to speak on this matter. Therefore, it was incumbent upon him, in all natural justice, to inform those Members. The hon. Member for Neath—

Mr. Hain: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The hon. Member for Neath waited until almost 10 o'clock, as he said himself—[HON. MEMBERS: "After."] Order—when the letter board was about to close before he did that. Therefore, in natural justice it is correct that those hon. Members who have not been informed that they would be referred to should not be referred to.

Mr. Hain: If that is your ruling, of course I am obliged to respect it, Madam Speaker. As it has been alleged in a taunt from the Conservative Benches that this was some devious manoeuvre, may I say exactly what happened this evening?. It is true that I knew that the debate was coming up. I did not know what time it would begin. I have spent most of the day and most of the evening checking and rechecking the information. It is not easy to get at the details. I did not know until well into the evening which hon. Members I would name to bring out my point about baby syndicates.
It is my fault that I did not put notice on the board until just after 10 o'clock. Although I have been a Member for three years, I was not aware that there was a rigid rule that the board closed at 10 o'clock. That is my fault. I came in and presented the notice to the board and found that it was closed. I did not hold it back as some devious manoeuvre. I was determined to ensure that before I named Members I was absolutely certain of my facts. That is the basis on which I proceed.
Are you saying that I am not allowed to refer to any other Members, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Hain: Right. I conclude by saying that it does not reflect any credit on the House—

Dr. Robert Spink: I seek clarification on something that the hon. Gentleman said tonight. He said earlier that he did not make any accusation that hon. Members had sought preferential treatment or even that

they knew that they had received preferential treatment—if indeed they did, which is very much in question. He went on to say a few moments ago, as Hansard will show, that hon. Members had sought to protect themselves. Will he clarify that? If he means it, he is contradicting what he said earlier and making a serious accusation. He might want to clarify that point.

Mr. Hain: Hon. Members, whether acting through their members' agent or in any other capacity, have naturally sought to get the best deal that they can out of Lloyd's. No one could dispute that. No investor in Lloyd's is going to say, "Do your worst for me." Of course they are not going to do that. Suddenly hon. Members were withdrawn from the catastrophic loss-making years of 1989, 1990 and 1991—what a surprise!—so that they did not incur the losses that others have had to bear in their place. That is the central charge that I make.
I have spent the past few days going through the information, discovering that several hon. Members, some of whom, for reasons which you have explained, Madam Speaker, I have not been able to name, were on syndicates year after year through the 1980s until 1988 and suddenly they came off them. Why was that? It was because 1989, 1990 and 1991 were the years when billions and billions of pounds of losses were suddenly incurred. They all fell on the external names and none of them appears to have fallen on Members of the House who are or were members of those syndicates until that time.
That is why it was very important for the Committee to retain that syndicate requirement. That would have required more open disclosure, and would also have allowed for a situation where Members could have defended themselves openly and positively against the attacks and allegations that I and others have made.
As it is now, the friends of those hon. Members who are Lloyd's names and who are in the market have the information. They are doing all the wheeler-dealing and carving others out of and themselves in to the preferential baby syndicates and others. [Interruption.] I wanted to name some of the people who had benefited from those, but I shall give way.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I declare an interest, as a member of Lloyd's since 1973—which predates my membership of the House—and also as a member of the council. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has had a lot of conversations with Lloyd's and that Lloyd's has answered his questions? Does he agree that he has not made any allegations to Lloyd's regulatory board which is there to regulate the Lloyd's market, and that he prefers to spread his smears here rather than put them to the regulatory board? The chairman of the board is Sir Alan Hardcastle, a notable chartered accountant who used to be the head of the Government's accountancy service. The board has been sanctioned by the Bank of England and the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is there to deal with regulatory matters. Why does the hon. Gentleman try to give the impression that he has not been able to make his accusations fully and openly when the board is there to receive them?

Mr. Hain: The very simple reason is that nobody has any confidence at all in the people running Lloyd's. They police their own markets. The sooner Lloyd's is brought under statutory regulation and has ceased to be a law unto


itself, with people in it who police themselves and do what they like without any regard for anybody else or the rule of law, the better.
I believe that if the House had kept to the syndicate rule, it would have encouraged a process whereby Lloyd's would have become properly regulated on a statutory basis, thereby enhancing its reputation and the reputation of the City of London. Instead, it is part of a sordid plot to cover up what has been going on in the Lloyd's market.

Mr. David Evennett: I did not intend to speak, but, having heard the nonsense which spouted forth from the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), I feel that I must make a couple of points.
I endorse totally what the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), said in his excellent speech. As someone who did declare all of the syndicates in which I participated—I was happy to do so—I was amazed at the comments of the hon. Member for Neath. I have been on syndicates, one of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, since 1977, and my involvement pre-dates my membership of the House by many years. It is important that information is available and I endorse whole-heartedly what my hon. Friend said.
I think that we have just heard the most sleazy and slur-making speech from the hon. Gentleman, and was appalled by it. If he spent all day researching his speech, it did not do him any good. The debate this evening has not been of the high calibre that we would have expected. It has been disappointing, and certainly the information given by the hon. Gentleman in respect of myself was inaccurate and wrong. That was not good from his point of view, and the people of Neath—whom he is supposed to represent—will deplore what he said.

Mr. Terry Lewis: I wish to return to what I believe to be the main issue in the debate. It is not really about understanding what the numbers in the register are about, and I fear that my constituents would think that they were looking at bingo numbers if I showed them a copy of the Register of Members' Interests.
There were important matters raised by those members of the Committee who did not share the view of the majority, and I must challenge the Committee Chairman to an extent. My disappointment arises from the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House which totally ignores the first part of the report. I believe that it is wrong for Members of the House—however venerable—to decide that they shall not enter into a disclosure that the House has demanded. They should be reprimanded, and that was a recommendation of the Committee. The Leader of the House should take note of that, and not just refer to recommendation 18.
It took the best part of four years to effect the original changes to the register. I have been a member of the Committee only for the past 12 months, but I believe that Members of the House have exerted pressure for the changes because, for their own reasons, they do not want to disclose what the House decided they should disclose. The Committee, in short, was bullied into making the changes. Given that it took so long to create the new register and work up the new insertions, this matter could have been considered in greater detail. It should not be forgotten that some very senior Members of the House were among the 11 who have been named.
I await the response of the Leader of the House with bated breath. The reprimand issued by the Committee in its report cannot be ignored for much longer. If the Committee is to continue to enjoy the confidence of the House, the report must be accepted in total by the right hon. Gentleman and he must give the House a chance to vote on it.

Sir Anthony Durant: I recently became a member of the Committee. When I joined it, preparations for the new register were in hand and it was about to be printed. I am not a member of Lloyd's and I know nothing about it, and I could not understand the figures at all. I agree with the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis): they looked like a lottery to me.
I therefore felt that that was the wrong way to proceed. But by then the register was already under way and had been printed. Subsequently, I have always argued for a different system. The Chairman has outlined the evidence that we took. I agree with him that Members should have filled in the forms—the first part of the report—because that was in line with a resolution of the House. There were reasons for reviewing the Lloyd's procedure, however. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) tried to conduct a debate on Lloyd's that had nothing whatever to do with the register.
The purpose of the register is to assist hon. Members so that when a Member speaks in a debate on a particular subject, we can know why he is doing so. That was the original idea of the register and why it came about. It was never intended to be an exposé of Lloyd's—that was never the purpose behind including the numbers either.
I strongly support the Chairman's proposals. We shall have to look at this matter in the Committee, because just including the numbers means nothing to the outside world—except to investigative journalists and Members of Parliament. They certainly mean nothing to me. Certainly, we want to know whether a person is a member of Lloyd's and what his interests in Lloyd's are. When there are debates on insurance-related matters, we shall then know why the Member in question is saying what he is saying. That, surely, is the point of the register, and it is why I support the Chairman's proposal.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The motion invites the House to approve the proposals contained in paragraph 18 of the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, headed "Registration of Lloyd's Syndicates".
I do not want to state a final view; I have not reached a final view about what the rules for registration ought to be. We invited members of the Select Committee to look at that for us. They will have heard detailed evidence and carefully weighed the issue before making their recommendation.
What strikes me—and obviously struck my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—is what our attitude to the existing rules should be and what I believe is the clear requirement on right hon. and hon. Members to comply with them.
The report does not just set out what the Committee believes the new rules should be—and we have a motion from the Lord President recommending them to the House and confirming that they will be the new rules. The report also contains paragraph 7, to which the Lord President's motion does not refer and to which his speech did not refer either. That paragraph states:
Whatever the circumstances, the refusal by individual Members to comply with a rule which has been agreed by the House sets a bad precedent and is to be deprecated. We accordingly draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Members named in paragraph 3 above have refused to register their Lloyd's syndicate numbers as required by the House's resolution of 28 June 1993.


The matter cannot simply be swept aside. We should require hon. Members to comply with our original decision, just as I assume that we will be requiring them to comply with the new decision which the Leader of the House is urging on us tonight.
It is not enough to deprecate the fact that hon. Members refused to comply. The Leader of the House should have something more to say about the matter; at least he should have something to say about the matter. Are the hon. Members who refused to comply with the House's clearly expressed wishes to be punished? Apparently not. Where does that leave those hon. Members—almost entirely Conservative Members—who did comply perfectly properly with the wishes of the House? They were right to do so and I applaud them, but they must feel rather aggrieved that they complied and others did not.
An hon. Member who spoke earlier in the debate referred to proceeding in a way that was fair and reasonable. We have to be fair and reasonable to every hon. Member. It is particularly right to be fair and reasonable to those hon. Members who have complied with the wishes of the House. Clearly we should have something to say to those hon. Members who have not complied with the wishes of the House.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there was no intention of carrying out any contempt of the House. It just seemed that the Committee, which has done an excellent job, was asking for information the purpose of which we simply could not understand. We approached the Chairman of the Committee, who willingly listened to us and, on reflection, the Committee has now decided that different rules should be adopted.

Mr. Brown: In life, we all get asked to do things that we do not understand. If it is a lawful request, we comply with it. That is the point I am making to the House. It is not up to us to choose which rules of this place we comply with—just the ones that are convenient to us—and to overlook the others.
Those are not my observations on the matter; I am being careful not to substitute my views for what the rules should be. I am referring to the decision of the Select Committee which has clearly decided to deprecate the refusal of Members of the House to register. They may well have had reasons for that and may well have argued with the Select Committee. I am sure that they did; nevertheless, I understand why the Select Committee has put the proposal before us.
On behalf of the whole House, the Lord President has a duty to reply to the debate and put the Government's view on paragraph 7 as well as their clearer view on paragraph 18.

Mr. Newton: I can say clearly what my position is and what led to the resolution being tabled.
In paragraph 7, the Committee made a number of comments which contain no recommendation. In the later paragraphs, it made a number of recommendations which require a resolution of the House to implement them. That is what the resolution provides for, and I spoke to that.
I shall say only one other thing, particularly to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), whose speech made it clear, in conjunction with remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), that the comments that he made, without having properly informed the people about whom he made them or intended to make them, did not follow any attempt to make complaints to the appropriate investigating body.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way.
The hon. Member for Neath made it clear that he had not communicated any complaint to the proper investigating authorities at Lloyd's. I presume from the fact that he intended to make his remarks and partially made them here, rather than anywhere else, that he is not prepared to list the names and suggestions outside the House.

Mr. Hain: I am fully prepared to make the information available. It was derived from sources within Lloyd's, from an analysis of the Lloyd's blue book and from an analysis of Chatset league tables. Anyone who takes the trouble that I took can find that information, and I am not seeking to use the privilege of the House.
Lloyd's has never invited me to expand on any of the early-day motions that I have tabled—as the Leader of the House knows—for the past two years, with the Speaker's permission. The reason is that Lloyd's is not interested, because it wanted to cover up what is going on in the market.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has assured the House that he did not intend to take any action under the cloak of parliamentary privilege that he would not take in another context. Of course I accept his word, but I think that—following what I have said, what the hon. Gentleman has said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said—the hon. Gentleman's proper course would be to make whatever suggestions he wishes to make, and to give whatever information he wishes to give, to the body to which my hon. Friend referred, or make it available for investigation in other ways.
It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech that his reason for wishing all the information—the syndicate numbers—to be placed in the Register of Members' Interests had little, if anything, to do with what he thought it proper to require of Members in relation to their duties in the House, and everything to do with a political campaign that he is waging in relation to Lloyd's. As Leader of the House, I take the view that what should concern us is what is proper for the Register of Members' Interests in the House. I think that the Committee's recommendations are sensible in that respect, and I commend them again to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

Mr. Brown: I have to say, Madam Speaker, that the Leader of the House—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman requires leave of the House, and I am hearing objections.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I must clear one thing at a time. I will take the point of order in a moment. Is the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) allowed to speak? I understand that he is. First, I will take the point of order from the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan).

Sir Gerard Vaughan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should the matter come to a Division, are those of us who have been involved entitled to vote?

Madam Speaker: Every hon. Member is entitled to vote, irrespective of whether he or she is a Lloyd's name.

Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should hon. Members who are Lloyd's names and have a particular pecuniary interest in being members of certain Lloyd's syndicates vote on the matter?

Madam Speaker: I sought sound advice on the question before I took the Chair. They can all vote if they wish to.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Leader of the House referred to campaigns. It seems to me that the most successful campaign has been that mounted by the members of Lloyd's syndicates who have refused to comply with our original decision that they should register. Instead of compelling them to comply with that decision, the rules have been altered.
The Committee may well have good reason for its action; I am not saying that it has not. I am saying, however, that the Lord President should have had something much sterner to say about the refusal of those hon. Members to comply with the original decision of the House. As he can say nothing about paragraph 7 of the report, I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Leader of the House a question? I assume that he has read paragraph 7 of the report which states :
Whatever the circumstances, the refusal by individual Members to comply with a rule which has been agreed by the House sets a bad precedent and is to be deprecated.
Will the Leader of the House come to the Dispatch Box and deprecate the activities of five knights of the realm, a former Prime Minister and five Conservative Members of Parliament? Will he do that please? There is time before the end of the debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The decision that was made by the original Select Committee on Members' Interests was that the syndicate numbers should be recorded and it was accepted by the House. Does the Leader of the House believe that that was done in some fit of absent-mindedness and therefore does not matter? What are the reasons for dismissing the original report, which was carried after an amendment was put to the Committee, by five votes to one, without the alternative position being argued?

Mr. Paul Flynn: rose—

Madam Speaker: I have not been in the Chair throughout the debate. Has the hon. Gentleman spoken?

Mr. Flynn: No.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Flynn: I am afraid that the braying like daleks that we have heard from Conservative Members is characteristic of the disgraceful debate that we have just had. We had a debate on this subject some months ago and there were fewer Members present then than there have been tonight. Similar allegations were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and, with great bitterness, by a member of Lloyd's the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). The substance of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath has been greeted by the closing of ranks by the spokesman for the Establishment. That is a disgrace and stains further the reputation of the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 130.

Division No. 294]
[1.11 am


AYES


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N
McMaster, Gordon


Cann, Jamie
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Connarty, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Parry, Robert


Etherington, Bill
Purchase, Ken


Flynn, Paul
Rendel, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Gunnell, John



Hain, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Jamieson, David
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Kilfoyle, Peter



NOES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Amess, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Ancram, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Ashby, David
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baldry, Tony
Hague, William


Bates, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Beggs, Roy
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowis, John
Hayes, Jerry


Brandreth, Gyles
Heald, Oliver


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Butcher, John
Jack, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jenkin, Bernard


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Key, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coe, Sebastian
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lightbown, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Luff, Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maclean, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evennett, David
Malone, Gerald


Fabricant, Michael
Mans, Keith






Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spencer Sir Derek


Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spring, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Sproat, Iain


Moss, Malcolm
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Ross, William (E Londonderry)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Noes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir Peter Emery: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may have noticed that Standing Order No. 37 was altered yesterday with the result that, if two Tellers have been appointed, the Chair does not have to wait two minutes before putting the Question a second time. In view of the hour, and as Clerks are already at the Table, it would be convenient if you acted according to new Standing Order No. 37.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I also recall that the Standing Order gives the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker discretion.

The House having divided: Ayes 130, Noes 21.

Division No. 295]
[1.22 am


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beggs, Roy
Evennett, David


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)





Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Ottaway, Richard


Jack, Michael
Paice, James


Jenkin, Bernard
Pickles, Eric


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Key, Robert
Rendel, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Richards, Rod


Kirkwood, Archy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knapman, Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mans, Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Viggers, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Widdecombe, Ann


Monro, Sir Hector
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Moss, Malcolm
Willetts, David


Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Norris, Steve
Mr. Derek Conway.


NOES


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McMaster, Gordon


Cann, Jamie
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Parry, Robert


Etherington, Bill
Purchase, Ken


Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Gunnell, John



Hain, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Jamieson, David
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Terry Lewis.


Mackinlay, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the proposals in paragraph 18 of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, for the remainder of this Session, Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall have effect as if for the words 'nine o'clock in the morning', in line 15, there were substituted the words 'eight o'clock in the morning'.—[Mr. Wells.]

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That—

(1) this House do meet on Thursday 21st July at half-past Nine o'clock;
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and


(3) at Three o'clock the Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Wells.]

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS

That the draft Fair Trading Act (Amendment) (Merger Prenotification) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

COMPETITION

That the Anti-Competitive Practices (Exclusions) (Amendment) Order 1994, (S.I., 1994, No. 1557), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this. House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

CONSUMER DISPUFES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11141/93, relating to the access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market; and endorses the draft Government response set out in the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 1st July.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Tommy Lee Bannister

Mr. David Jamieson: I present a petition to the House on behalf of the friends and family of Tommy Lee Bannister, a three-year-old boy from Plymouth who died in his home of unnatural causes. Despite the appalling injuries that he suffered, no one was charged with his death. It is estimated that there are at least 12 cases each year in which children die in their homes and no one can be brought to court on those charges. The petitioners seek a change in the law that permits suspects to walk freely from such crimes.
The petition reads:
Wherefore your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House will change the law to enable suspects to be jointly charged with an offence if they refuse to give evidence against each other. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
The petition is signed by 12,000 people from Plymouth and the counties of Devon and Cornwall.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Road Bridge (Kelso)

Motion made, and Question proposal, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is my pleasure to rise, even at this early hour in the morning, to take advantage of the opportunity of the debate on the Adjournment to raise the very important subject of the need for a replacement road bridge at Kelso.
I am sorry that the Minister has been kept up until this late time in the night. The longer I am a Member of the House, the more committed I become to the need for a reform of its procedure. I am sure that many of my constituents, who will be anxious to follow the proceedings over the next half hour, will be puzzled about why we arrange our business in such a way that consideration is given to such an important subject at this untoward hour.
I know that the Minister is familiar with the Borders, and that he frequently visits the area. We are always pleased to see him, because he listens with great care to what is said to him, and the visits are always useful from our point of view. I know that he will be familiar with the town of Kelso. Kelso is, indeed, a very successful Border market town. It enjoys a high quality of life, and has a close-knit community. It is an almost perfect place in which to live and work.
However, in common with, I suppose, many similar historic towns in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom, Kelso is struggling to cope with the pressures and demands of 20th-century life in an environment designed to serve a bygone age. Of course, other communities are also suffering those problems. There are always increasingly acute problems facing communities which seek to reconcile the requirements of modern traffic flows, in particular, with inadequate internal town roads.
Kelso has a peculiar problem, because it is cut in half by the River Tweed. That problem does not face many other towns, certainly not Border towns. Of course, as a bisecting physical feature, the River Tweed is a partition which admittedly has some advantages. It provides one of the most attractive picture postcard settings throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, which is of considerable advantage to tourism.
But the Tweed separates 80 per cent. of the houses on the northern bank of the river from 60 per cent. of the jobs on the southern bank. That would be a big enough problem for a town which had a modern bridge to provide modern communications between the northern and the southern banks, but it is an intolerable problem as the only connection between the two halves of the town has to be made by means of a bridge, which was designed in 1799 and built between 1801 and 1804.
The bridge, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, has a width between the parapets at the side of the road of 24 ft. That is made up of a 16 ft wide roadway and two 4 ft wide footpaths. All the utilities—the Borders regional council water and drainage facilities and services, Scottish Power, British Gas and British Telecom—have apparatus in the platform of the bridge.
Kelso bridge is included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest as a category A building. It is also scheduled as an ancient monument. That presents problems of its own, because no easy amendments or additions or alterations by way of a remedial structural

extension can be contemplated against the background of that kind of importance. It was, of course, built and designed by Renay and it has a quality all of its own.
Way back in the 1920s, there were attempts to engage in works to strengthen the bridge. Cleaning and pointing work has been undertaken, and the inside faces of the parapets have been rendered from time to time. It is difficult, however, to do anything fundamental to increase the capacity of the bridge as it stands.
A proposal to increase the width of the bridge was included in the Roxburghshire county council development plan of 1958. After much controversy locally, objections to that suggestion were heard at a local public inquiry in 1962, at which it was decided that no change should be made.
To come nearer to the present, in 1980 both parapets had developed a distinct outward lean, and there was an observable amount of stone deterioration. Restoration had to be undertaken on the upstream side during 1981 and the downstream side in 1985. The work, which was similar on both sides, consisted of taking down the entire parapet and rebuilding plumb.
There was an accident in 1980. A vehicle collided with the downstream parapet, knocking a 27 ft length of cope and panel into the River Tweed. Remedial works were undertaken, but they were confined to rebuilding the dislodged section with salvaged stone augmented with new stone as necessary.
Parapets on old stone arch bridges were never designed structurally to contain the vehicles that now use them. They were built, sometimes in an ornamental style, to prevent pedestrians and farm animals from accidentally falling from the arch. Such parapets are unable to provide the same standard of containment as that recommended now for new bridges.
The old bridge carries at peak hours about 12,000 vehicles a day. That is the peak flow figure. The last reading that I have been able to find for average flows—it was taken in 1994—is that the bridge is carrying 9,650 vehicles a day. There has been an increase of about 7 per cent. since that reading, which was taken some 12 months ago.
These figures are extremely high for such a type and design of bridge. That is the view of the local people. There is significant concern about the risk of further personal injury or death as a result of accidents that could happen on the bridge.
I have had a heavy postbag from local mums, who fear running the gauntlet of the 4 ft pathway, especially when there are advancing heavy goods vehicles, with prams, toddlers and children. They have to use the bridge, as it is the only way of crossing daily from one side of the river to the other. These women make the crossing with their hearts in their mouths and their courage in their hands. They get their heads down, and sometimes they run, literally for their lives.
If that is true of young mums, it is true too of elderly people and cyclists. It is becoming true also of heavy goods vehicle drivers. All these people are concerned about safety, and all are finding that conditions are worsening and becoming much more difficult to contend with.
The problem is not confined to potential injury to life and limb. The closure of the bridge, for whatever reason it had to be contemplated, would require a detour of about 19


miles to Mertoun bridge, or 20 miles in the other direction to Coldstream. That is not an acceptable degree of potential disruption in modern circumstances.
The burden of my remarks is that local people have been waiting too long for remedial action to deal with the problem. The first recommendation that I have found was made in 1967. The A698 Kelso relief road scheme was originally recommended by a technical working party. It was approved by the old Roxburghshire county council and Kelso town council. That was nearly 30 years ago.
As the Minister is aware, the current scheme, which has been developed by the present roads authority—Borders regional council—has now been included in the roads and transportation committee report. It is known as the TPP—the transport policies programme. The scheme in that report involves the section of the relief road from the north end of Bullet Loan at its junction with Shedden Park road via the new bridge over the River Tweed at Crown point, and via the former railway line to join the Jedburgh road at Wallaceneuk.
Following a detailed traffic study of that proposal in 1988, it has been confirmed that that scheme would be of tremendous benefit to the historic hinterland and centre of Kelso, as it would occasion a considerable reduction of traffic on certain routes, including a decrease of up to 65 per cent. on the existing bridge, which, as I have said, has problems with width, safety and high traffic flows. The Minister will know, as he made urgent inquiries about it at the time, as we all did, that an accident occurred recently on the bridge, resulting in a fire tender going through the parapet and the driver of the tender being tragically killed.
In order to make progress, the scheme that the regional council has put together will require help to enable it to be sustained within the time scale envisaged by the current council capital programme. As the Minister is aware, the regional council applied to the Secretary of State for consent to develop. An environmental statement, a compulsory purchase order and side roads orders were also forwarded, and the Secretary of State has now given consent for all those proposals.
However, the cost of the project represents a very high proportion of the capital allocation for roads and transportation over the period of construction. In relation to the scheme, the regional council has requested that the Secretary of State take special heed of the proposed expenditure by increasing the council's capital allocation over the period in order to permit the project to proceed at a reasonable pace without deferring unduly other schemes within the five-year rolling capital programme.
On 7 July, I received a written answer to a question in which I asked the Secretary of State
when he expects to be able to approve the necessary capital consents to enable a start to he made on the new road bridge for Kelso.
The reply contained the statement:
The Government set annual block allocations for capital expenditure on roads and transport and any proposals contained in councils' financial plans will be given careful consideration,".—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 273.]
That is a form of words that the council has been receiving in response to increasingly urgent requests for information about the Kelso bridge and relief road scheme for too long now. The provisional allocations of capital consents for 1994–95 and 1995–96 do not give any indication that that any additional section 94 consent is to be allocated, or is to be allocated in the near future. That is a matter of some concern.
Quite simply, the problem is that the project is too big for the annual programme of capital spending to be accommodated easily. The project is expensive. It will cost about £8 million, and ancillary work must be carried out to the associated road network at either end of the bypass and the bridge. Environmental considerations, in any major structure built across Scotland's premier salmon river, must be paramount.
There are complications about the way in which the project has to be mounted. The design standards have to meet modern road requirements, and they must recognise the high quality of the surrounding environment. The cost is high because standards cannot be compromised.
As the Minister will know, the scheme will take 18 months to two years to complete. The council cannot commit borrowing consent into future financial years. With a capital spending programme on roads of £5 million a year, plus or minus a little, the council simply cannot find £8 million over a two-year period without severely prejudicing or ceasing all other expenditure on roads for two years. Clearly, that is not a realistic possibility, and the Government must accept that.
It seems that the answer lies in the hands of Ministers, who have the power to allow a temporary hump in capital consents over the necessary two or three-year period so that the project may be committed and built. The delay is now becoming intolerable and unacceptable. We are not talking about enormous amounts of money in terms of the total public expenditure spend on roads in Scotland. The Government have done exercises to enable the Borders region to do similar capital projects such as the Melrose bypass.
I am making an urgent plea tonight for the Minister to give fresh consideration to the issue so that the necessary capital consents can be found for the bridge to be built without any further delay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate about the need for a new Kelso bridge. It is nice to see the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) present to support the hon. Gentleman.
I am well aware of the strength of local feeling about the need for the project to proceed, and I believe that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has made a persuasive case tonight. It has been useful to have the matter aired. The hon. Gentleman has made a well-reasoned case for the project, and has drawn the subject forcibly to our attention. He can be assured that we will give it careful and sympathetic consideration when deciding future roads and transport capital allocation levels generally and, in particular, for Borders regional council.
Before focusing on the specific project at Kelso, I think that it would be helpful if I were to explain the Scottish Office's role in relation to the local authority capital expenditure roads and transport programme. Let me make it clear first what our role is not about. When we came to power in 1979, we took the decision to disengage substantially from detailed involvement in local authority decision-making. As a result, neither Ministers nor


Scottish Office officials are normally involved in the detailed decision-making process about individual local roads and transport projects.
Our role is, in fact, twofold: first, to determine the broad overall level of capital consent resources which can be made available for local roads and transport projects; secondly, to take decisions about how that total is to be distributed to meet the competing claims of the 12 regional and islands councils. That process involves a general consideration of the council's transport, policies and programme documents and financial plans. Those documents set out the proposals for roads and other projects in their area over the next five years. The documents are updated annually by way of programme supplements.
Careful consideration is given to particular projects which are drawn to our attention. Account is taken of the resources available, but at the end of the process a block consent is issued to each roads and transport authority. It seems entirely right that the authority should decide its own priorities.
It should be remembered that these resources are not limited to the advisory allocation which is notified to them each year. Authorities are free to add to their allocation in a number of ways. They can switch resources from other capital programmes. They can use receipts from the disposal of assets. They can transfer funding for capital projects from their current expenditure budget. They may be able to attract private finance.
By these means, councils, including Borders regional council, have substantial resources at their disposal to enable them to proceed with projects to which they attach priority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not for me, or any other member of the Government, to tell the council what it should or should not be deciding on the capital projects.
As regards Borders regional council's roads and transport capital allocations, I should emphasise that there is no automatic right to a particular share of the available resources to enable authorities to undertake capital expenditure. As I have said, financial plans are considered afresh each year, and we shall certainly consider with great care what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight.
As regards the particular levels of capital consent, it is fair to point out that the amount of consent issued to the council has remained at a steady level, despite this being a period of restraint on public expenditure. Indeed, the provisional allocations announced indicate a modest increase in the level for 1996–97 of some £400,000. That equates to a percentage increase of approximately 10 per cent.
There is therefore no substance to the claims that have apparently been made locally that the authority's roads and transport allocation has been reduced. Also, supplementary allocations have been made where possible, with a particularly generous one issued to Borders last year. I accept that the allocations issued are below the levels included in the council's plans, but councils cannot always expect to have all their wishes met against a background of tight expenditure control.
The 1994–95 level of £4.2 million equates to expenditure per head of some £40. That is the third highest

level of all the regions in Scotland. The regional average for expenditure per head in Scotland is £33—considerably lower.
It is also worth emphasising that, wherever possible, each year, if further resources become available through underspending by authorities in the previous year, we will give careful consideration to issuing supplementary allocations for appropriate projects. As I mentioned, last year Borders received an additional £670,000–£270,000 for bridge strengthening and repair and £400,000 for road improvements. Its share of the supplementary allocations issued for roads and transport was more than three times its annual share of the core consent.
Allocations have been issued for this year, and there is no reserve available which could be drawn on now. While I cannot give the hon. Member any guarantee about the availability of supplementary consent in the current year, should the opportunity arise, the needs of the Borders will be considered most carefully before any decisions are made.
I would also add that any supplementary allocation which might become available for 1994-95 would not in itself solve the funding problems which Borders regional council seems to face in financing the Kelso bridge and bypass project, although it would make a start.

Mr. Kirkwood: The problem will get worse before it gets better. After 1996, a larger number of smaller unitary authorities will all face this problem with capital consents. Their annual level of capital spend just cannot cope with a project the size of £8 million. If one is running a budget of £5 million capital, one will never get to the stage of achieving the necessary phased finance for an £8 million project. Are the Government prepared in principle to address the problem?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we will consider most carefully Kelso's case for a new bridge and bypass. We will look at it sympathetically in the framework of what is possible. If there is a possibility of a supplementary allocation, the points that he has made will most certainly be borne in mind.
As for the merits of the case, the hon. Gentleman made a persuasive case. We have received a number of representations, including one from the Fire Brigades Union and another from the community council. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a fatal accident inquiry in 1993.
The matter was also discussed between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Minto earlier this year, and the case for increased resources was considered carefully at that time. Traffic flows now average about 9,500 per day, and I believe that on one day the traffic flow peaked at more than 12,000 vehicles in the relevant 24-hour period, which is very relevant.
As regards the region's plans for a Kelso bypass and a new bridge, the necessary planning consents have been obtained and that is an important step forward. Planning procedures necessary for the project mean that, under the regulations governing development, the council had to publicise its proposals, and Borders submitted its notice of intention for the proposed bypass on 14 December 1990. Fourteen objections were received following the statutory advertisement.
The Secretary of State concluded that there were no grounds which justified him requiring the regional council to submit a formal planning application, and a clearance letter was issued on 21 August 1992. Planning consent is therefore deemed to have been granted. My right hon. Friend's decision is final, and he has no further procedural involvement in the matter.
The proposed bypass would, I understand, be built on the south and east sides of Kelso. It would run from the Jedburgh road, some 200 m west of the Wallaceneuk farm access, to Shedden Park road at its junction with Bullet Loan. The greater part of its route follows the line of the former railway along the south side of the River Tweed. A new bridge over the Tweed would be built south east of Bullet Loan. The existing road would be improved, five lengths of road and one private means of access would be stopped up, and one new means of access would be provided.
The latest plan we have to hand from the council indicates a projected spend over three years of £1.4 million, £2.7 million and £1.3 million for each of the three years—a total of some £6.4 million. I understand that the latest estimate for the project which the council received has now risen to about £7.4 million, and that an additional project linking the bypass to the road network will cost a further £0.5 million. I recognise that those are considerable sums, and that Borders will have some programming difficulties in accommodating such a proportionally large scheme.
I understand that the council is now committed to progressing phase 3 of the Melrose bypass via Newstead—a project estimated to cost more than £2 million. It of course remains open to the council to spread the construction phase over a longer time span than previously planned, although I appreciate that there may be constraints, given the nature of the construction contracts for such projects.
We will give the case for additional consent serious thought within the context of the forthcoming public expenditure round, and in the distribution of capital allocations next year. I also emphasise that it is entirely for Borders regional council to decide on its own priorities, and therefore the projects it wishes to take forward.
As to the future, when reorganisation takes effect, there is no reason why Borders regional council should be disadvantaged in terms of its capital allocation levels—indeed, it should be in a strong position to state its case. Careful consideration will be given in the forthcoming period to the system of capital allocations to operate from—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Two o'clock